Jakob Zscheischler

Vasileios Sitokonstantinou, Emiliano Díaz Salas Porras, Jordi Cerdà Bautista et al.

In a changing climate, sustainable agriculture is essential for food security and environmental health. However, it is challenging to understand the complex interactions among its biophysical, social, and economic components. Predictive machine learning (ML), with its capacity to learn from data, is leveraged in sustainable agriculture for applications like yield prediction and weather forecasting. Nevertheless, it cannot explain causal mechanisms and remains descriptive rather than prescriptive. To address this gap, we propose causal ML, which merges ML's data processing with causality's ability to reason about change. This facilitates quantifying intervention impacts for evidence-based decision-making and enhances predictive model robustness. We showcase causal ML through eight diverse applications that benefit stakeholders across the agri-food chain, including farmers, policymakers, and researchers.

Mariana Madruga de Brito, Brielen Madureira, Taís Maria Nunes Carvalho et al.

Recent advances in natural language processing (NLP) and large language models (LLMs) have enabled the systematic use of large-scale textual data from news, social media, and reports to create datasets with socio-economic impacts of climate hazards such as floods, droughts, storms, and multi-hazard events. As the field of text-as-data for impact assessment expands, so does its methodological complexity. Yet research remains fragmented, with no clear guidelines for defining what constitutes an impact, handling temporal and spatial biases, and selecting appropriate modeling and post-processing strategies. This lack of coherence limits transparency and comparability across studies. Here, we address this gap by synthesising common practices, describing key challenges specific to the use of text-as-data methods for analyzing socio-economic impact data, and proposing recommendations to address them. By providing guidance on best practices, we aim to support the construction of robust text-derived socio-economic impact datasets that can more accurately inform disaster risk management and attribution studies.

Olivier C. Pasche, Jonathan Wider, Zhongwei Zhang et al.

The forecast accuracy of machine learning (ML) weather prediction models is improving rapidly, leading many to speak of a "second revolution in weather forecasting". With numerous methods being developed and limited physical guarantees offered by ML models, there is a critical need for a comprehensive evaluation of these emerging techniques. While this need has been partly fulfilled by benchmark datasets, they provide little information on rare and impactful extreme events or on compound impact metrics, for which model accuracy might degrade due to misrepresented dependencies between variables. To address these issues, we compare ML weather prediction models (GraphCast, PanguWeather, and FourCastNet) and ECMWF's high-resolution forecast system (HRES) in three case studies: the 2021 Pacific Northwest heatwave, the 2023 South Asian humid heatwave, and the North American winter storm in 2021. We find that ML weather prediction models locally achieve similar accuracy to HRES on the record-shattering Pacific Northwest heatwave but underperform when aggregated over space and time. However, they forecast the compound winter storm substantially better. We also highlight structural differences in how the errors of HRES and the ML models build up to that event. The ML forecasts lack important variables for a detailed assessment of the health risks of the 2023 humid heatwave. Using a possible substitute variable, prediction errors show spatial patterns with the highest danger levels over Bangladesh being underestimated by the ML models. Generally, case-study-driven, impact-centric evaluation can complement existing research, increase public trust, and aid in developing reliable ML weather prediction models.

Zhongwei Zhang, Erich Fischer, Jakob Zscheischler et al.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based models are revolutionizing weather forecasting and have surpassed leading numerical weather prediction systems on various benchmark tasks. However, their ability to extrapolate and reliably forecast unprecedented extreme events remains unclear. Here, we show that for record-breaking weather extremes, the numerical model High RESolution forecast (HRES) from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts still consistently outperforms state-of-the-art AI models GraphCast, GraphCast operational, Pangu-Weather, Pangu-Weather operational, and Fuxi. We demonstrate that forecast errors in AI models are consistently larger for record-breaking heat, cold, and wind than in HRES across nearly all lead times. We further find that the examined AI models tend to underestimate both the frequency and intensity of record-breaking events, and they underpredict hot records and overestimate cold records with growing errors for larger record exceedance. Our findings underscore the current limitations of AI weather models in extrapolating beyond their training domain and in forecasting the potentially most impactful record-breaking weather events that are particularly frequent in a rapidly warming climate. Further rigorous verification and model development is needed before these models can be solely relied upon for high-stakes applications such as early warning systems and disaster management.

Raghul Parthipan, Mohit Anand, Hannah M Christensen et al.

Regularization is a technique to improve generalization of machine learning (ML) models. A common form of regularization in the ML literature is to train on data where similar inputs map to different outputs. This improves generalization by preventing ML models from becoming overconfident in their predictions. This paper shows how using longer timesteps when modelling chaotic Earth systems naturally leads to more of this regularization. We show this in two domains. We explain how using longer model timesteps can improve results and demonstrate that increased regularization is one of the causes. We explain why longer model timesteps lead to improved regularization in these systems and present a procedure to pick the model timestep. We also carry out a benchmarking exercise on ORAS5 ocean reanalysis data to show that a longer model timestep (28 days) than is typically used gives realistic simulations. We suggest that there will be many opportunities to use this type of regularization in Earth system problems because the Earth system is chaotic and the regularization is so easy to implement.

Younes Boulaguiem, Jakob Zscheischler, Edoardo Vignotto et al.

Modelling dependencies between climate extremes is important for climate risk assessment, for instance when allocating emergency management funds. In statistics, multivariate extreme value theory is often used to model spatial extremes. However, most commonly used approaches require strong assumptions and are either too simplistic or over-parameterized. From a machine learning perspective, Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) are a powerful tool to model dependencies in high-dimensional spaces. Yet in the standard setting, GANs do not well represent dependencies in the extremes. Here we combine GANs with extreme value theory (evtGAN) to model spatial dependencies in summer maxima of temperature and winter maxima in precipitation over a large part of western Europe. We use data from a stationary 2000-year climate model simulation to validate the approach and explore its sensitivity to small sample sizes. Our results show that evtGAN outperforms classical GANs and standard statistical approaches to model spatial extremes. Already with about 50 years of data, which corresponds to commonly available climate records, we obtain reasonably good performance. In general, dependencies between temperature extremes are better captured than dependencies between precipitation extremes due to the high spatial coherence in temperature fields. Our approach can be applied to other climate variables and can be used to emulate climate models when running very long simulations to determine dependencies in the extremes is deemed infeasible.

Joris M. Mooij, Jonas Peters, Dominik Janzing et al.

The discovery of causal relationships from purely observational data is a fundamental problem in science. The most elementary form of such a causal discovery problem is to decide whether X causes Y or, alternatively, Y causes X, given joint observations of two variables X, Y. An example is to decide whether altitude causes temperature, or vice versa, given only joint measurements of both variables. Even under the simplifying assumptions of no confounding, no feedback loops, and no selection bias, such bivariate causal discovery problems are challenging. Nevertheless, several approaches for addressing those problems have been proposed in recent years. We review two families of such methods: Additive Noise Methods (ANM) and Information Geometric Causal Inference (IGCI). We present the benchmark CauseEffectPairs that consists of data for 100 different cause-effect pairs selected from 37 datasets from various domains (e.g., meteorology, biology, medicine, engineering, economy, etc.) and motivate our decisions regarding the "ground truth" causal directions of all pairs. We evaluate the performance of several bivariate causal discovery methods on these real-world benchmark data and in addition on artificially simulated data. Our empirical results on real-world data indicate that certain methods are indeed able to distinguish cause from effect using only purely observational data, although more benchmark data would be needed to obtain statistically significant conclusions. One of the best performing methods overall is the additive-noise method originally proposed by Hoyer et al. (2009), which obtains an accuracy of 63+-10 % and an AUC of 0.74+-0.05 on the real-world benchmark. As the main theoretical contribution of this work we prove the consistency of that method.

Povilas Daniusis, Dominik Janzing, Joris Mooij et al.

We consider two variables that are related to each other by an invertible function. While it has previously been shown that the dependence structure of the noise can provide hints to determine which of the two variables is the cause, we presently show that even in the deterministic (noise-free) case, there are asymmetries that can be exploited for causal inference. Our method is based on the idea that if the function and the probability density of the cause are chosen independently, then the distribution of the effect will, in a certain sense, depend on the function. We provide a theoretical analysis of this method, showing that it also works in the low noise regime, and link it to information geometry. We report strong empirical results on various real-world data sets from different domains.

Jakob Zscheischler, Dominik Janzing, Kun Zhang

We propose a method that infers whether linear relations between two high-dimensional variables X and Y are due to a causal influence from X to Y or from Y to X. The earlier proposed so-called Trace Method is extended to the regime where the dimension of the observed variables exceeds the sample size. Based on previous work, we postulate conditions that characterize a causal relation between X and Y. Moreover, we describe a statistical test and argue that both causal directions are typically rejected if there is a common cause. A full theoretical analysis is presented for the deterministic case but our approach seems to be valid for the noisy case, too, for which we additionally present an approach based on a sparsity constraint. The discussed method yields promising results for both simulated and real world data.