Explainable AI for Geoscientific Regression: Evaluating Sensitivity and Attribution Methods with the Lorenz-63 System and Applications
Abstract
As artificial intelligence (AI) moves from research prototypes to operational tools in Earth system science, trust in its predictions becomes increasingly important. Explainable AI (XAI) offers insight into how AI models make predictions. However, many influential XAI methods were developed or popularised for classification, and their interpretation for regression, which dominates geoscience, is less well established. A central obstacle is the lack of ground truth for judging explanations. We show that, for a dynamical system with known governing equations, matched references can be built directly from the physics. We extend established sensitivity methods to provide physical references for both sensitivity and attribution, separately for methods with implicit and explicit baselines, all computed from the governing equations independently of the network. Applied to an AI emulator of the Lorenz-63 system, these references show that method families answer distinct questions rather than approximating one ``true'' explanation. The emulator's sensitivities and attributions can depart most from their physical references where it forecasts best, so predictive skill is not a substitute for the physical realism of what a model has learned. We then review XAI applications to Earth system regression, organised by method family, extending to issues an idealised system cannot address: computational scalability, strongly correlated high-dimensional predictors, and reliance on expert judgement where no physical reference exists. We also discuss how an XAI method can be mathematically valid yet only partially relevant to a given stakeholder group. We close with future directions and practical recommendations for responsible XAI use in geoscientific modelling and forecasting.
Related
- Long-term ozone formation sensitivity in China: spatiotemporal evolution and machine learning attribution
- Summertime ozone sensitivity to temperature in China: observational evidence and mechanistic attribution in urban and rural areas in the Yangtze River Delta region
- Wastewater Membrane Bioreactors: A Comprehensive Review of Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Digital Twin Applications
- Automated identification, industrial attribution and conditional emission-rate quantification of recurrent CO enhancement source regions from TROPOMI observations
- Nuclear contamination limits 14CH4 but not 14CO2 source attribution in a five-year Swiss atmospheric monitoring network
BibTeX
@misc{higgs2026explainable,
title = {{Explainable AI for Geoscientific Regression: Evaluating Sensitivity and Attribution Methods with the Lorenz-63 System and Applications}},
author = {Ieuan Higgs and Todd Jones and Kieran Hunt and Anna-Louise Ellis},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2608.07406},
eprint = {2608.07406},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07406},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Explainable AI for Geoscientific Regression: Evaluating Sensitivity and Attribution Methods with the Lorenz-63 System and Applications
AU - Ieuan Higgs
AU - Todd Jones
AU - Kieran Hunt
AU - Anna-Louise Ellis
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/30
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2608.07406
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07406
AB - As artificial intelligence (AI) moves from research prototypes to operational tools in Earth system science, trust in its predictions becomes increasingly important. Explainable AI (XAI) offers insight into how AI models make predictions. However, many influential XAI methods were developed or popularised for classification, and their interpretation for regression, which dominates geoscience, is less well established. A central obstacle is the lack of ground truth for judging explanations. We show that, for a dynamical system with known governing equations, matched references can be built directly from the physics. We extend established sensitivity methods to provide physical references for both sensitivity and attribution, separately for methods with implicit and explicit baselines, all computed from the governing equations independently of the network. Applied to an AI emulator of the Lorenz-63 system, these references show that method families answer distinct questions rather than approximating one ``true'' explanation. The emulator's sensitivities and attributions can depart most from their physical references where it forecasts best, so predictive skill is not a substitute for the physical realism of what a model has learned. We then review XAI applications to Earth system regression, organised by method family, extending to issues an idealised system cannot address: computational scalability, strongly correlated high-dimensional predictors, and reliance on expert judgement where no physical reference exists. We also discuss how an XAI method can be mathematically valid yet only partially relevant to a given stakeholder group. We close with future directions and practical recommendations for responsible XAI use in geoscientific modelling and forecasting.
ER -