The synergistic control of multiple pollutants is critically challenged by complex nonlinear interactions, strong spatiotemporal heterogeneity, and the difficulty of tracing causal drivers. Deep learning offers high predictive power but suffers from the “black-box” problem, limiting its acceptance in environmental decision-making. Explainable Deep Learning (XDL) integrates physical mechanisms with interpretable algorithms, achieving both prediction accuracy and explanatory transparency. This review systematically evaluates the effectiveness and limitations of XDL in analyzing multi-pollutant interactions, with a comparative focus on atmospheric and aquatic environments. Key techniques, including SHAP, attention mechanisms, and physics-informed neural networks, are examined for their roles in synergistic monitoring, source apportionment, and regulatory optimization. The main findings reveal that: (1) XDL, particularly the “tree model + SHAP” paradigm, has become a dominant tool for quantifying driving factors, yet most attributions remain correlational rather than causal; (2) physics-informed fusion (soft vs. hard constraints) improves physical consistency but faces unresolved conflicts between data and physical laws, with current models lacking a conflict detection mechanism; (3) cross-media comparison shows a unified technical logic of “physical mechanism guidance + post hoc feature attribution”, but atmospheric applications lead in embedding advection–diffusion constraints, while aquatic research excels in spatial topology modeling via graph neural networks; (4) critical bottlenecks include the lack of causal inference, uncertainty-unaware interpretations, and data scarcity. Future directions demand a shift from correlation-only to causal-aware attribution, from blind fusion to conflict-detecting systems, and from no evaluation standards to domain-specific validation benchmarks. XDL is poised to transform multi-pollutant governance from experience-driven to intelligence-driven approaches, provided that verifiable interpretability and physical consistency become core design principles.
Liu et al. (Thu,) studied this question.