Finding the right XAI method -- A Guide for the Evaluation and Ranking of Explainable AI Methods in Climate Science
This work provides a guide for climate researchers to select appropriate XAI methods, but it is incremental as it applies existing evaluation frameworks to a specific domain.
The paper tackles the challenge of evaluating and comparing Explainable AI (XAI) methods in climate science due to missing ground truth explanations, by introducing evaluation properties like robustness and faithfulness and applying them to a case study predicting temperature maps, finding that methods like Integrated Gradients perform well in some properties while sensitivity methods trade off others.
Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods shed light on the predictions of machine learning algorithms. Several different approaches exist and have already been applied in climate science. However, usually missing ground truth explanations complicate their evaluation and comparison, subsequently impeding the choice of the XAI method. Therefore, in this work, we introduce XAI evaluation in the climate context and discuss different desired explanation properties, namely robustness, faithfulness, randomization, complexity, and localization. To this end, we chose previous work as a case study where the decade of annual-mean temperature maps is predicted. After training both a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) and a convolutional neural network (CNN), multiple XAI methods are applied and their skill scores in reference to a random uniform explanation are calculated for each property. Independent of the network, we find that XAI methods Integrated Gradients, layer-wise relevance propagation, and input times gradients exhibit considerable robustness, faithfulness, and complexity while sacrificing randomization performance. Sensitivity methods -- gradient, SmoothGrad, NoiseGrad, and FusionGrad, match the robustness skill but sacrifice faithfulness and complexity for randomization skill. We find architecture-dependent performance differences regarding robustness, complexity and localization skills of different XAI methods, highlighting the necessity for research task-specific evaluation. Overall, our work offers an overview of different evaluation properties in the climate science context and shows how to compare and benchmark different explanation methods, assessing their suitability based on strengths and weaknesses, for the specific research problem at hand. By that, we aim to support climate researchers in the selection of a suitable XAI method.