Status and prospects for drought forecasting: opportunities in artificial intelligence and hybrid physical–statistical forecasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite major improvements in weather and climate modelling and substantial increases in remotely sensed observations, drought prediction remains a major challenge. After a review of the existing methods, we discuss major research gaps and opportunities to improve drought prediction. We argue that current approaches are top-down, assuming that the process(es) and/or driver(s) are known—i.e. starting with a model and then imposing it on the observed events (reality). With the help of an experiment, we show that there are opportunities to develop bottom-up drought prediction models—i.e. starting from the reality (here, observed events) and searching for model(s) and driver(s) that work. Recent advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning provide significant opportunities for developing bottom-up drought forecasting models. Regardless of the type of drought forecasting model (e.g. machine learning, dynamical simulations, analogue based), we need to shift our attention to robustness of theories and outputs rather than event-based verification. A shift in our focus towards quantifying the stability of uncertainty in drought prediction models, rather than the goodness of fit or reproducing the past, could be the first step towards this goal. Finally, we highlight the advantages of hybrid dynamical and statistical models for improving current drought prediction models. This article is part of the Royal Society Science+ meeting issue ‘Drought risk in the Anthropocene’.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".