smoothgrad
Explanation of Dynamic Physical Field Predictions using WassersteinGrad: Application to Autoregressive Weather Forecasting
Essafouri, Younes, Raynaud, Laure, Drozda, Luciano, Risser, Laurent
As the demand to integrate Artificial Intelligence into high-stakes environments continues to grow, explaining the reasoning behind neural-network predictions has shifted from a theoretical curiosity to a strict operational requirement. Our work is motivated by the explanations of autoregressive neural predictions on dynamic physical fields, as in weather forecasting. Gradient-based feature attribution methods are widely used to explain the predictions on such data, in particular due to their scalability to high-dimensional inputs. It is also interesting to remark that gradient-based techniques such as SmoothGrad are now standard on images to robustify the explanations using pointwise averages of the attribution maps obtained from several noised inputs. Our goal is to efficiently adapt this aggregation strategy to dynamic physical fields. To do so, our first contribution is to identify a fundamental failure mode when averaging perturbed attribution maps on dynamic physical fields: stochastic input perturbations do not induce stationary amplitude noise in attribution maps, but instead cause a geometric displacement of the attributions. Consequently, pointwise averaging blurs these spatially misaligned features. To tackle this issue, we introduce WassersteinGrad, which extracts a geometric consensus of perturbed attribution maps by computing their entropic Wasserstein barycenter. The results, obtained on regional weather data and a meteorologist-validated neural model, demonstrate promising explainability properties of WassersteinGrad over gradient-based baselines across both single-step and autoregressive forecasting settings.
A Attribution methods for Concepts
In our case, it boils down to: ' The smoothing effect induced by the average helps to reduce the visual noise, and hence improves the explanations. For the experiment, m and are the same as SmoothGrad. We start by deriving the closed form of Saliency (SA) and naturally Gradient-Input (GI): ' The case of V arGrad is specific, as the gradient of a linear system being constant, its variance is null. W We recall that for Gradient Input, Integrated Gradients, Occlusion, ' It was quickly realized that they unified properties of various domains such as graph theory, linear algebra or geometry. Later, in the '60s, a connection was made At each step, the insertion metric selects the concepts of maximum score given a cardinality constraint.
075b051ec3d22dac7b33f788da631fd4-Paper.pdf
We investigate whether post-hoc model explanations are effective for diagnosing model errors-model debugging. In response to the challenge of explaining a model's prediction, a vast array of explanation methods have been proposed. Despite increasing use, it is unclear if they are effective. To start, we categorizebugs,based on their source, into: data, model, and test-timecontamination bugs.
A Attribution methods for Concepts
In our case, it boils down to: ' The smoothing effect induced by the average helps to reduce the visual noise, and hence improves the explanations. For the experiment, m and are the same as SmoothGrad. We start by deriving the closed form of Saliency (SA) and naturally Gradient-Input (GI): ' The case of V arGrad is specific, as the gradient of a linear system being constant, its variance is null. W We recall that for Gradient Input, Integrated Gradients, Occlusion, ' It was quickly realized that they unified properties of various domains such as graph theory, linear algebra or geometry. Later, in the '60s, a connection was made At each step, the insertion metric selects the concepts of maximum score given a cardinality constraint.