Prithwijit Chowdhury

Prithwijit Chowdhury, Ahmad Mustafa, Mohit Prabhushankar et al.

In geophysics, hydrocarbon prospect risking involves assessing the risks associated with hydrocarbon exploration by integrating data from various sources. Machine learning-based classifiers trained on tabular data have been recently used to make faster decisions on these prospects. The lack of transparency in the decision-making processes of such models has led to the emergence of explainable AI (XAI). LIME and SHAP are two such examples of these XAI methods which try to generate explanations of a particular decision by ranking the input features in terms of importance. However, explanations of the same scenario generated by these two different explanation strategies have shown to disagree or be different, particularly for complex data. This is because the definitions of "importance" and "relevance" differ for different explanation strategies. Thus, grounding these ranked features using theoretically backed causal ideas of necessity and sufficiency can prove to be a more reliable and robust way to improve the trustworthiness of the concerned explanation strategies.We propose a unified framework to generate counterfactuals as well as quantify necessity and sufficiency and use these to perform a robustness evaluation of the explanations provided by LIME and SHAP on high dimensional structured prospect risking data. This robustness test gives us deeper insights into the models capabilities to handle erronous data and which XAI module works best in pair with which model for our dataset for hydorcarbon indication.

Prithwijit Chowdhury, Mohit Prabhushankar, Ghassan AlRegib

The Segment Anything Model (SAM) has revolutionized interactive segmentation through spatial prompting. While existing work primarily focuses on automating prompts in various settings, real-world annotation workflows involve iterative refinement where annotators observe model outputs and strategically place prompts to resolve ambiguities. Current pipelines typically rely on the annotator's visual assessment of the predicted mask quality. We postulate that a principled approach for automated interactive prompting is to use a model-derived criterion to identify the most informative region for the next prompt. In this work, we establish active prompting: a spatial active learning approach where locations within images constitute an unlabeled pool and prompts serve as queries to prioritize information-rich regions, increasing the utility of each interaction. We further present BALD-SAM: a principled framework adapting Bayesian Active Learning by Disagreement (BALD) to spatial prompt selection by quantifying epistemic uncertainty. To do so, we freeze the entire model and apply Bayesian uncertainty modeling only to a small learned prediction head, making intractable uncertainty estimation practical for large multi-million parameter foundation models. Across 16 datasets spanning natural, medical, underwater, and seismic domains, BALD-SAM demonstrates strong cross-domain performance, ranking first or second on 14 of 16 benchmarks. We validate these gains through a comprehensive ablation suite covering 3 SAM backbones and 35 Laplace posterior configurations, amounting to 38 distinct ablation settings. Beyond strong average performance, BALD-SAM surpasses human prompting and, in several categories, even oracle prompting, while consistently outperforming one-shot baselines in final segmentation quality, particularly on thin and structurally complex objects.

Jorge Quesada, Chen Zhou, Prithwijit Chowdhury et al.

Machine learning has taken a critical role in seismic interpretation workflows, especially in fault delineation tasks. However, despite the recent proliferation of pretrained models and synthetic datasets, the field still lacks a systematic understanding of the generalizability limits of these models across seismic data representing diverse geologic, acquisition and processing settings. Distributional shifts between data sources, limitations in fine-tuning strategies and labeled data accessibility, and inconsistent evaluation protocols all remain major roadblocks to deploying reliable models in real-world exploration. In this paper, we present the first large-scale benchmarking study explicitly designed to provide guidelines for domain shift strategies in seismic interpretation. Our benchmark spans over 200 combinations of model architectures, datasets and training strategies, across three datasets (synthetic and real) including FaultSeg3D, CRACKS, and Thebe. We systematically assess pretraining, fine-tuning, and joint training under varying domain shifts. Our analysis shows that common fine-tuning practices can lead to catastrophic forgetting, especially when source and target datasets are disjoint, and that larger models such as Segformer are more robust than smaller architectures. We also find that domain adaptation methods outperform fine-tuning when shifts are large, yet underperform when domains are similar. Finally, we complement segmentation metrics with a novel analysis based on fault characteristic descriptors, revealing how models absorb structural biases from training datasets. Overall, we establish a robust experimental baseline that provides insights into tradeoffs in current fault delineation workflows and highlights directions for building more generalizable and interpretable models.

Prithwijit Chowdhury, Mohit Prabhushankar, Ghassan AlRegib et al.

Explainable AI (XAI) has revolutionized the field of deep learning by empowering users to have more trust in neural network models. The field of XAI allows users to probe the inner workings of these algorithms to elucidate their decision-making processes. The rise in popularity of XAI has led to the advent of different strategies to produce explanations, all of which only occasionally agree. Thus several objective evaluation metrics have been devised to decide which of these modules give the best explanation for specific scenarios. The goal of the paper is twofold: (i) we employ the notions of necessity and sufficiency from causal literature to come up with a novel explanatory technique called SHifted Adversaries using Pixel Elimination(SHAPE) which satisfies all the theoretical and mathematical criteria of being a valid explanation, (ii) we show that SHAPE is, infact, an adversarial explanation that fools causal metrics that are employed to measure the robustness and reliability of popular importance based visual XAI methods. Our analysis shows that SHAPE outperforms popular explanatory techniques like GradCAM and GradCAM++ in these tests and is comparable to RISE, raising questions about the sanity of these metrics and the need for human involvement for an overall better evaluation.