Position Paper: Bridging the Gap Between Machine Learning and Sensitivity Analysis

We argue that interpretations of machine learning (ML) models or the model-building process can bee seen as a form of sensitivity analysis (SA), a general methodology used to explain complex systems in many fields such as environmental modeling, engineering, or economics. We address both researchers and practitioners, calling attention to the benefits of a unified SA-based view of explanations in ML and the necessity to fully credit related work. We bridge the gap between both fields by formally describing how (a) the ML process is a system suitable for SA, (b) how existing ML interpretation methods relate to this perspective, and (c) how other SA techniques could be applied to ML.

Differentiable modeling to unify machine learning and physical models and advance Geosciences

Process-Based Modeling (PBM) and Machine Learning (ML) are often perceived as distinct paradigms in the geosciences. Here we present differentiable geoscientific modeling as a powerful pathway toward dissolving the perceived barrier between them and ushering in a paradigm shift. For decades, PBM offered benefits in interpretability and physical consistency but struggled to efficiently leverage large datasets. ML methods, especially deep networks, presented strong predictive skills yet lacked the ability to answer specific scientific questions. While various methods have been proposed for ML-physics integration, an important underlying theme -- differentiable modeling -- is not sufficiently recognized. Here we outline the concepts, applicability, and significance of differentiable geoscientific modeling (DG). "Differentiable" refers to accurately and efficiently calculating gradients with respect to model variables, critically enabling the learning of high-dimensional unknown relationships. DG refers to a range of methods connecting varying amounts of prior knowledge to neural networks and training them together, capturing a different scope than physics-guided machine learning and emphasizing first principles. Preliminary evidence suggests DG offers better interpretability and causality than ML, improved generalizability and extrapolation capability, and strong potential for knowledge discovery, while approaching the performance of purely data-driven ML. DG models require less training data while scaling favorably in performance and efficiency with increasing amounts of data. With DG, geoscientists may be better able to frame and investigate questions, test hypotheses, and discover unrecognized linkages.