skip to main content

Title: Investigating the fidelity of explainable artificial intelligence methods for applications of convolutional neural networks in geoscience
Abstract Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have recently attracted great attention in geoscience due to their ability to capture non-linear system behavior and extract predictive spatiotemporal patterns. Given their black-box nature however, and the importance of prediction explainability, methods of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) are gaining popularity as a means to explain the CNN decision-making strategy. Here, we establish an intercomparison of some of the most popular XAI methods and investigate their fidelity in explaining CNN decisions for geoscientific applications. Our goal is to raise awareness of the theoretical limitations of these methods and gain insight into the relative strengths and weaknesses to help guide best practices. The considered XAI methods are first applied to an idealized attribution benchmark, where the ground truth of explanation of the network is known a priori , to help objectively assess their performance. Secondly, we apply XAI to a climate-related prediction setting, namely to explain a CNN that is trained to predict the number of atmospheric rivers in daily snapshots of climate simulations. Our results highlight several important issues of XAI methods (e.g., gradient shattering, inability to distinguish the sign of attribution, ignorance to zero input) that have previously been overlooked in our field and, more » if not considered cautiously, may lead to a distorted picture of the CNN decision-making strategy. We envision that our analysis will motivate further investigation into XAI fidelity and will help towards a cautious implementation of XAI in geoscience, which can lead to further exploitation of CNNs and deep learning for prediction problems. « less
; ;
Award ID(s):
2019758 1934668
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
Artificial Intelligence for the Earth Systems
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
1 to 42
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract

    Methods of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) are used in geoscientific applications to gain insights into the decision-making strategy of neural networks (NNs), highlighting which features in the input contribute the most to a NN prediction. Here, we discuss our “lesson learned” that the task of attributing a prediction to the input does not have a single solution. Instead, the attribution results depend greatly on the considered baseline that the XAI method utilizes—a fact that has been overlooked in the geoscientific literature. The baseline is a reference point to which the prediction is compared so that the prediction can be understood. This baseline can be chosen by the user or is set by construction in the method’s algorithm—often without the user being aware of that choice. We highlight that different baselines can lead to different insights for different science questions and, thus, should be chosen accordingly. To illustrate the impact of the baseline, we use a large ensemble of historical and future climate simulations forced with the shared socioeconomic pathway 3-7.0 (SSP3-7.0) scenario and train a fully connected NN to predict the ensemble- and global-mean temperature (i.e., the forced global warming signal) given an annual temperature map from an individualmore »ensemble member. We then use various XAI methods and different baselines to attribute the network predictions to the input. We show that attributions differ substantially when considering different baselines, because they correspond to answering different science questions. We conclude by discussing important implications and considerations about the use of baselines in XAI research.

    Significance Statement

    In recent years, methods of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) have found great application in geoscientific applications, because they can be used to attribute the predictions of neural networks (NNs) to the input and interpret them physically. Here, we highlight that the attributions—and the physical interpretation—depend greatly on the choice of the baseline—a fact that has been overlooked in the geoscientific literature. We illustrate this dependence for a specific climate task, in which a NN is trained to predict the ensemble- and global-mean temperature (i.e., the forced global warming signal) given an annual temperature map from an individual ensemble member. We show that attributions differ substantially when considering different baselines, because they correspond to answering different science questions.

    « less
  2. Abstract Despite the increasingly successful application of neural networks to many problems in the geosciences, their complex and nonlinear structure makes the interpretation of their predictions difficult, which limits model trust and does not allow scientists to gain physical insights about the problem at hand. Many different methods have been introduced in the emerging field of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), which aims at attributing the network’s prediction to specific features in the input domain. XAI methods are usually assessed by using benchmark datasets (such as MNIST or ImageNet for image classification). However, an objective, theoretically derived ground truth for the attribution is lacking for most of these datasets, making the assessment of XAI in many cases subjective. Also, benchmark datasets specifically designed for problems in geosciences are rare. Here, we provide a framework, based on the use of additively separable functions, to generate attribution benchmark datasets for regression problems for which the ground truth of the attribution is known a priori. We generate a large benchmark dataset and train a fully connected network to learn the underlying function that was used for simulation. We then compare estimated heatmaps from different XAI methods to the ground truth in order to identifymore »examples where specific XAI methods perform well or poorly. We believe that attribution benchmarks as the ones introduced herein are of great importance for further application of neural networks in the geosciences, and for more objective assessment and accurate implementation of XAI methods, which will increase model trust and assist in discovering new science.« less
  3. Pham, Tien ; Solomon, Latasha ; Hohil, Myron E. (Ed.)
    Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is the capability of explaining the reasoning behind the choices made by the machine learning (ML) algorithm which can help understand and maintain the transparency of the decision-making capability of the ML algorithm. Humans make thousands of decisions every day in their lives. Every decision an individual makes, they can explain the reasons behind why they made the choices that they made. Nonetheless, it is not the same in the case of ML and AI systems. Furthermore, XAI was not wideley researched until suddenly the topic was brought forward and has been one of the most relevant topics in AI for trustworthy and transparent outcomes. XAI tries to provide maximum transparency to a ML algorithm by answering questions about how models effectively came up with the output. ML models with XAI will have the ability to explain the rationale behind the results, understand the weaknesses and strengths the learning models, and be able to see how the models will behave in the future. In this paper, we investigate XAI for algorithmic trustworthiness and transparency. We evaluate XAI using some example use cases and by using SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) library and visualizing the effect of featuresmore »individually and cumulatively in the prediction process.« less
  4. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) equipped with multispectral sensors offer high spatial and temporal resolution imagery for monitoring crop stress at early stages of development. Analysis of UAV-derived data with advanced machine learning models could improve real-time management in agricultural systems, but guidance for this integration is currently limited. Here we compare two deep learning-based strategies for early warning detection of crop stress, using multitemporal imagery throughout the growing season to predict field-scale yield in irrigated rice in eastern Arkansas. Both deep learning strategies showed improvements upon traditional statistical learning approaches including linear regression and gradient boosted decision trees. First, we explicitly accounted for variation across developmental stages using a 3D convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture that captures both spatial and temporal dimensions of UAV images from multiple time points throughout one growing season. 3D-CNNs achieved low prediction error on the test set, with a Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) of 8.8% of the mean yield. For the second strategy, a 2D-CNN, we considered only spatial relationships among pixels for image features acquired during a single flyover. 2D-CNNs trained on images from a single day were most accurate when images were taken during booting stage or later, with RMSE ranging frommore »7.4 to 8.2% of the mean yield. A primary benefit of convolutional autoencoder-like models (based on analyses of prediction maps and feature importance) is the spatial denoising effect that corrects yield predictions for individual pixels based on the values of vegetation index and thermal features for nearby pixels. Our results highlight the promise of convolutional autoencoders for UAV-based yield prediction in rice.« less
  5. Recent years have witnessed the growing literature in empirical evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) methods. This study contributes to this ongoing conversation by presenting a comparison on the effects of a set of established XAI methods in AI-assisted decision making. Based on our review of previous literature, we highlight three desirable properties that ideal AI explanations should satisfy — improve people’s understanding of the AI model, help people recognize the model uncertainty, and support people’s calibrated trust in the model. Through three randomized controlled experiments, we evaluate whether four types of common model-agnostic explainable AI methods satisfy these properties on two types of AI models of varying levels of complexity, and in two kinds of decision making contexts where people perceive themselves as having different levels of domain expertise. Our results demonstrate that many AI explanations do not satisfy any of the desirable properties when used on decision making tasks that people have little domain expertise in. On decision making tasks that people are more knowledgeable, the feature contribution explanation is shown to satisfy more desiderata of AI explanations, even when the AI model is inherently complex. We conclude by discussing the implications of our study for improving the designmore »of XAI methods to better support human decision making, and for advancing more rigorous empirical evaluation of XAI methods.« less