Sensitivity Fidelity Reveals Physical Dependencies Beyond Forecast Accuracy in Deep-Learning Earth-System Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Deep-learning models increasingly rival numerical simulation in Earth-system forecasting, yet forecast error alone cannot determine whether their learned input-output dependencies are physically consistent. Here we introduce sensitivity fidelity as an additional criterion: alongside prediction error, model responses to input perturbations should be examined against a trusted reference or established physical knowledge. In an idealized Rayleigh-B'enard convection benchmark, four surrogate architectures achieved low forecast errors yet encoded markedly different sensitivities. Quantitative comparison with a matched adjoint distinguished the models far more sharply than forecast accuracy and showed that predictive skill and sensitivity fidelity need not coincide, while finite-perturbation experiments further linked these differences to the propagation of initial-condition uncertainty. We then applied this strategy to El Ni~no-Southern Oscillation prediction, where no adjoint reference exists and learned sensitivities showed event-wise robustness, validity under finite perturbations, and consistency with established precursors. These results identify gradient-based evaluation as a discriminating complement to forecast-error metrics, providing a practical test of whether data-driven Earth-system models learn physically credible dependencies.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 64 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Oct 2026.
Builds on
20 of 64 references.
References · 20
- 2020Fourier Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equationscited by 2,908
- 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,371
- 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,969
- 2021Swin Transformer V2: Scaling Up Capacity and Resolutioncited by 1,228
- 2015Automatic differentiation in machine learning: a surveycited by 855
- 2022FourCastNet: A Global Data-driven High-resolution Weather Model using Adaptive Fourier Neural Operatorscited by 776
- 2019Unmasking Clever Hans Predictors and Assessing What Machines Really Learncited by 365
- 2021Focal Self-attention for Local-Global Interactions in Vision Transformerscited by 288
- 2021Adaptive Fourier Neural Operators: Efficient Token Mixers for Transformerscited by 248
- 2023Neural General Circulation Models for Weather and Climatecited by 239
- 2017Sobolev Training for Neural Networkscited by 143
- 2023Scalable Transformer for PDE Surrogate Modelingcited by 128
8 more
- 2019Physically Interpretable Neural Networks for the Geosciences: Applications to Earth System Variabilitycited by 44
- 2023Finding the right XAI method -- A Guide for the Evaluation and Ranking of Explainable AI Methods in Climate Sciencecited by 27
- 2023Understanding the Expressivity and Trainability of Fourier Neural Operator: A Mean-Field Perspectivecited by 11
- 20244D-Var using Hessian approximation and backpropagation applied to automatically-differentiable numerical and machine learning modelscited by 6
- 2025LOGLO-FNO: Efficient Learning of Local and Global Features in Fourier Neural Operatorscited by 6
- 2025Towards Long-Range ENSO Prediction with an Explainable Deep Learning Modelcited by 4
- 2024Implicit factorized transformer approach to fast prediction of turbulent channel flowscited by 2
- 2026Sensitivity-Constrained Neural Operators for Data-Efficient Forward and Inverse Modeling of Partial Differential Equation Systemscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.