← Back to all development cases
This case was judged by an anonymized AI reviewer and has not been independently reviewed by people; inspect the draft, cards, and both outputs to assess it.
AutocompleteWithout cards better98 / 280 · beu-d0051987d5765e8e

Interpretable Machine Learning for Weather and Climate Prediction: A Survey

Climate and environmental science · 2403.18864v1

FLOWING EVIDENCE BENCHMARK

How do we compare writing with and without cards?

At the same writing position, the same model produces one first result with cards and one without. All 280 pairs enter the overall anonymized review, which assesses whether a decision not to continue fits the draft.

Overall: 138 with-card wins, 26 ties, 107 no-card wins, 5 pairs where neither was usable, and 4 inconclusive judgments. Both sides wrote text in 218 pairs; 48 had a deliberate stop and 14 included an invalid output.

SAME DRAFT · WITH OR WITHOUT CARDS

01 · FIXED WRITING POSITION

MANUSCRIPT

Same writing position ▌

Matched autocomplete at the same draft position

02 · TWO MATCHED VERSIONS

SHARED BY BOTH

Draft, writing task, and generation model

A · With cards

Relevant literature cards supplied

B · Without cards

No literature cards supplied

Generation model

Same model and version

A → first output

B → first output

Anonymized AI judge

First outputs are anonymized as X and Y

Continuation review: accuracy, fit to the writing task and usability
Returns: X preferred / tie / Y preferred / both unusable

Review again with the answer order swapped

HOW DOES BLIND JUDGING WORK?

① Anonymize both outputs
The AI judge sees the same draft and both first outputs without knowing which received cards.

② Compare and swap order
The judge applies task-specific criteria in X/Y and then Y/X order.

③ Review disagreements
A third pass resolves disagreements. Incomplete reviews remain in the denominator.

How are positions and cards selected?

We selected 40 writing positions in each of seven fields, for 280 comparisons. The position and relevant literature cards were set before each comparison, so both versions began from the same draft.

The main result retains every frozen position, including places where cards might not add a useful next move. This avoids selecting cases based on their outputs, but 49% describes the whole cohort, not a win rate where evidence clearly had an opportunity to help. This cohort did not record that opportunity label for each position before generation, so those two groups cannot yet be separated reliably.

CARD USE · 140/280

Reported card use in continuations with text

The model reports whether a card affected its continuation. In 140 of 280 tests it produced continuation text and reported card use. The previous count of 150 included 10 cases without continuation text and has been corrected.

COMPARISON · 70 / 7 / 30

Which written version was better?

Of the 107 reported-use cases where both versions produced text, the blinded AI judge preferred the with-card version 70 times, found 7 about the same, and preferred the without-card version 30 times.

How are the two table percentages calculated?

ADOPTION COVERAGE

140reported use with text
÷
280all positions
=
50%

WITH-CARD VERSION PREFERRED

70with cards better
÷
107comparable tests
=
65%

The percentages use different groups: 50% counts continuations with text reporting card use among all 280 tests; 65% covers the 107 such cases with text on both sides. The generating model reports card use, while an anonymized AI judge compares writing quality.

Card use is self-reported by the generator. The anonymized AI judge sees the draft and source snippets, so source-aware preference remains possible; there was no independent human review. The overall result describes these 280 frozen positions, not a win probability for any writing task.

Manuscript writing position

Text excerpt · not a PDF page

Research manuscript · excerpt

Interpretable Machine Learning for Weather and Climate Prediction: A Survey

1 Introduction

… ods. 2) Designing inherently interpretable models from scratch using architectures like tree ensembles and explainable neural networks. We summarize how each technique provides insights into the predictions, uncovering novel meteorological relationships captured by machine learning. Lastly, we discuss research challenges around achieving deeper mechanistic interpretations aligned with physical principles, developing standardized evaluation benchmarks, integrating interpretability into iterative model development workflows, and providing explainability for large foundation models.

Weather and climate change have a significant impact on social, economic, and environmental systems around the world. Therefore, accurate weather forecasting and climate prediction are crucial to hazard preparation, resource management, and understanding long-term climate change. Traditionally, these predictions have relied heavily on complex numerical models that solve fundamental physics equations influencing atmospheric dynamics ( Richardson, 1922 ) , such as Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) models and General Circulation Models (GCMs). However, these physics-based numerical predictions have some major limitations, including uncertainties in initial conditions, incomplete representations of sub-grid processes, and constraints on spatial resolution and computing power. In recent years, machine learning (ML) techniques, particularly deep learning models, have achieved dramatic progress in processing massive datasets, characterizing spatial features ( Du et al., 2020 ) , mining time correlations

↓ Next paragraph was generated here

The highlighted text is near the writing position. This is a layout of the evaluation input, not a PDF screenshot.

A matched comparison at the same writing positionOverall AI review: Without cards better

Both arms use the same model, task and manuscript context. Only the retrieved passages differ. The first recorded output from each arm is shown below.

Read overall AI review rationale

A = without cards · B = with cards

The draft is discussing ML/deep learning applications in weather and climate prediction, with the cursor positioned after 'mining time correlations' in a list of ML capabilities relevant to this domain. Output A continues this list with 'in sequential observations, and generating accurate predictions across a range of weather and climate tasks' — this fits the argument perfectly, maintaining topical coherence by specifying sequential data (relevant to time series/weather) and tying predictions back to the weather/climate domain established in the draft. Output B inserts citations (Shi et al., 2015; LeCun et al., 2015) and claims about 'a wide range of domains' with 'generating accurate predictions.' This is problematic: the draft is specifically about weather/climate, not general domains, and the LeCun et al. 2015 citation is a famous deep learning overview but is being used here to support a claim about weather/climate predictions that it doesn't substantiate. More critically, inserting parenthetical citations mid-sentence disrupts the parallel structure of the list (processing..., characterizing..., mining..., [and] generating...). The draft's pattern shows citations appear after introducing concepts, not before. Output B's 'wide range of domains' represents topic drift away from the specific weather/climate focus, and the unsupported citation claims make it materially unreliable.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

Not preferred in this comparison

( Shi et al., 2015 ) , and generating accurate predictions across a wide range of domains ( LeCun et al., 2015 ) .

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · Towards interpretable-by-design deep learning algorithms

The proposed framework named IDEAL (Interpretable-by-design DEep learning ALgorithms) recasts the standard supervised classification problem into a function of similarity to a set of prototypes derived from the training data, while taking advantage of existing latent spaces of large neural networks…

Read full passage excerpt

The proposed framework named IDEAL (Interpretable-by-design DEep learning ALgorithms) recasts the standard supervised classification problem into a function of similarity to a set of prototypes derived from the training data, while taking advantage of existing latent spaces of large neural networks forming so-called Foundation Models (FM). This addresses the issue of explainability (stage B) while retaining the benefits from the tremendous achievements offered by DL models (e.g., visual transformers, ViT) pre-trained on huge data sets such as IG-3.6B + ImageNet-1K or LVD-142M (stage A). We show that one can turn such DL models into conceptually simpler, explainable-through-prototypes ones. The key findings can be summarized as follows: (1) the proposed models are interpretable through prototypes, mitigating the issue of confounded interpretations, (2) the proposed IDEAL framework circumvents the issue of catastrophic forgetting allowing efficient class-incremental learning, and (3) the …

Card 2 · Explainability in Graph Neural Networks: A Taxonomic Survey

Deep learning methods are achieving ever-increasing performance on many artificial intelligence tasks. A major limitation of deep models is that they are not amenable to interpretability. This limitation can be circumvented by developing post hoc techniques to explain the predictions, giving rise to…

Read full passage excerpt

Deep learning methods are achieving ever-increasing performance on many artificial intelligence tasks. A major limitation of deep models is that they are not amenable to interpretability. This limitation can be circumvented by developing post hoc techniques to explain the predictions, giving rise to the area of explainability. Recently, explainability of deep models on images and texts has achieved significant progress. In the area of graph data, graph neural networks (GNNs) and their explainability are experiencing rapid developments. However, there is neither a unified treatment of GNN explainability methods, nor a standard benchmark and testbed for evaluations. In this survey, we provide a unified and taxonomic view of current GNN explainability methods. Our unified and taxonomic treatments of this subject shed lights on the commonalities and differences of existing methods and set the stage for further methodological developments. To facilitate evaluations, we generate a set of ben …

Card 3 · Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learning

There has recently been a surge of work in explanatory artificial intelligence (XAI). This research area tackles the important problem that complex machines and algorithms often cannot provide insights into their behavior and thought processes. XAI allows users and parts of the internal system to be…

Read full passage excerpt

There has recently been a surge of work in explanatory artificial intelligence (XAI). This research area tackles the important problem that complex machines and algorithms often cannot provide insights into their behavior and thought processes. XAI allows users and parts of the internal system to be more transparent, providing explanations of their decisions in some level of detail. These explanations are important to ensure algorithmic fairness, identify potential bias/problems in the training data, and to ensure that the algorithms perform as expected. However, explanations produced by these systems is neither standardized nor systematically assessed. In an effort to create best practices and identify open challenges, we describe foundational concepts of explainability and show how they can be used to classify existing literature. We discuss why current approaches to explanatory methods especially for deep neural networks are insufficient. Finally, based on our survey, we conclude wi …

Card 4 · Explainable Machine Learning for Scientific Insights and Discoveries

Machine learning methods have been remarkably successful for a wide range of application areas in the extraction of essential information from data. An exciting and relatively recent development is the uptake of machine learning in the natural sciences, where the major goal is to obtain novel scient…

Read full passage excerpt

Machine learning methods have been remarkably successful for a wide range of application areas in the extraction of essential information from data. An exciting and relatively recent development is the uptake of machine learning in the natural sciences, where the major goal is to obtain novel scientific insights and discoveries from observational or simulated data. A prerequisite for obtaining a scientific outcome is domain knowledge, which is needed to gain explainability, but also to enhance scientific consistency. In this article, we review explainable machine learning in view of applications in the natural sciences and discuss three core elements that we identified as relevant in this context: transparency, interpretability, and explainability. With respect to these core elements, we provide a survey of recent scientific works that incorporate machine learning and the way that explainable machine learning is used in combination with domain knowledge from the application areas.

Card 5 · Deep Learning for Robust and Explainable Models in Computer Vision

Recent breakthroughs in machine and deep learning (ML and DL) research have provided excellent tools for leveraging enormous amounts of data and optimizing huge models with millions of parameters to obtain accurate networks for image processing. These developments open up tremendous opportunities fo…

Read full passage excerpt

Recent breakthroughs in machine and deep learning (ML and DL) research have provided excellent tools for leveraging enormous amounts of data and optimizing huge models with millions of parameters to obtain accurate networks for image processing. These developments open up tremendous opportunities for using artificial intelligence (AI) in the automation and human assisted AI industry. However, as more and more models are deployed and used in practice, many challenges have emerged. This thesis presents various approaches that address robustness and explainability challenges for using ML and DL in practice. Robustness and reliability are the critical components of any model before certification and deployment in practice. Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) exhibit vulnerability to transformations of their inputs, such as rotation and scaling, or intentional manipulations as described in the adversarial attack literature. In addition, building trust in AI-based models requires a bet …

Model-reported card use

The model did not report that any card materially affected this completion.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

Preferred by blind review

in sequential observations, and generating accurate predictions across a range of weather and climate tasks.

Earlier card-use comparison

The earlier diagnostic compared only cases with reported card use and text on both sides; its scope differs from the overall AI review above.

This case does not have both with-card continuation text and a model-reported use record. It remains among all 280 tests but does not enter the reported-use comparison.

The passages are input material; their presence does not mean an output used them or that they support every claim. Draft and source passages are excerpted; no simulated scores or PDF appear here.