1

Machine Learning for the Geosciences:
Challenges and Opportunities

arXiv:1711.04708v1 [cs.LG] 13 Nov 2017

Anuj Karpatne, Imme Ebert-Uphoff, Sai Ravela, Hassan Ali Babaie, and Vipin Kumar
Abstract—Geosciences is a field of great societal relevance that requires solutions to several urgent problems facing our humanity
and the planet. As geosciences enters the era of big data, machine learning (ML)— that has been widely successful in commercial
domains—offers immense potential to contribute to problems in geosciences. However, problems in geosciences have several unique
challenges that are seldom found in traditional applications, requiring novel problem formulations and methodologies in machine
learning. This article introduces researchers in the machine learning (ML) community to these challenges offered by geoscience
problems and the opportunities that exist for advancing both machine learning and geosciences. We first highlight typical sources of
geoscience data and describe their properties that make it challenging to use traditional machine learning techniques. We then
describe some of the common categories of geoscience problems where machine learning can play a role, and discuss some of the
existing efforts and promising directions for methodological development in machine learning. We conclude by discussing some of the
emerging research themes in machine learning that are applicable across all problems in the geosciences, and the importance of a
deep collaboration between machine learning and geosciences for synergistic advancements in both disciplines.
Index Terms—Machine learning, Earth science, Geoscience, Earth Observation Data, Physics-based Models

F

1

I NTRODUCTION

Momentous challenges facing our society require solutions
to problems that are geophysical in nature [1], [2], [3], [4],
such as predicting impacts of climate change, measuring
air pollution, predicting increased risks to infrastructures
by disasters such as hurricanes, modeling future availability
and consumption of water, food, and mineral resources, and
identifying factors responsible for earthquake, landslide,
flood, and volcanic eruption. The study of such problems
is at the confluence of several disciplines such as physics,
geology, hydrology, chemistry, biology, ecology, and anthropology that aspire to understand the Earth system and its
various interacting components, collectively referred to as
the field of geosciences.
As the deluge of big data continues to impact practically
every commercial and scientific domain, geosciences has
also witnessed a major revolution from being a data-poor
field to a data-rich field. This has been possible with the
advent of better sensing technologies (e.g., remote sensing
satellites and deep sea drilling vessels), improvements in
computational resources for running large-scale simulations
of Earth system models, and Internet-based democratization
of data that has enabled the collection, storage, and processing of data on crowd-sourced and distributed environments
such as cloud platforms. Most geoscience data sets are
•
•
•
•
•

A. Karpatne is with the University of Minnesota.
Email: karpa009@umn.edu
I. Ebert-Uphoff is with the Colorado State University.
Email: iebert@colostate.edu
S. Ravela is with the Massachusetts Insititue of Technology.
Email: ravela@mit.edu
H. Babaie is with the Georgia State University.
Email: hbabaie@gsu.edu
V. Kumar is with the University of Minnesota.
Email: kumar001@umn.edu

publicly available and do not suffer from privacy issues that
have hindered adoption of data science methodologies in
areas such as health-care and cyber-security. The growing
availability of big geoscience data offers immense potential
for machine learning (ML)— that has revolutionized almost
all aspects of our living (e.g., commerce, transportation, and
entertainment)—to significantly contribute to geoscience
problems of great societal relevance.
Given the variety of disciplines participating in geoscience research and the diverse nature of questions being
investigated, the analysis of geoscience data has several
unique aspects that are strikingly different from standard
data science problems encountered in commercial domains.
For example, geoscience phenomena are governed by physical laws and principles and involve objects and relationships that often have amorphous boundaries and complex
latent variables. Challenges introduced by these characteristics motivate the development of new problem formulations and methodologies in machine learning that may be
broadly applicable to problems even outside the scope of
geosciences.
Thus, there is a great opportunity for machine learning researchers to closely collaborate with geoscientists
and cross-fertilize ideas across disciplines for advancing
the frontiers of machine learning as well as geosciences.
There are several communities working on this emerging
field of inter-disciplinary collaboration at the intersection
of geosciences and machine learning. These include, but
are not limited to, Climate Informatics: a community of researchers conducting annual workshops to bridge problems
in climate science with methods from statistics, machine
learning, and data mining [5]; Climate Change Expeditions:
a multi-institution multi-disciplinary collaboration funded
by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Expeditions in
Computing grant on “Understanding Climate Change: A

2

data-driven Approach” [6]; and ESSI: a focus group of
the American Geophysical Union (AGU) on Earth & Space
Sciences Informatics [7]. More recently, NSF has funded a
research coordination network on Intelligent Systems for
Geosciences (IS-GEO) [8], with the intent of forging stronger
connections between the two communities. Furthermore,
a number of leading conferences in machine learning and
data mining such as Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), IEEE International Conferene on Data Mining
(ICDM), SIAM International Conference on Data Mining
(SDM), and Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)
have included workshops or tutorials on topics related to
geosciences. The role of big data in geosciences has also been
recognized in recent perspective articles (e.g., [9], [10]) and
special issues of journals and magazines (e.g., [11]).
The purpose of this article is to introduce researchers
in the machine learning (ML) community to the opportunities and challenges offered by geoscience problems. The
remainder of this article is organized as follows. Section 2
provides an overview of the types and origins of geoscience
data. Section 3 describes the challenges for machine learning
arising from both the underlying geoscience processes and
their data collection. Section 4 outlines important geoscience
problems where machine learning can yield major advances.
Section 5 discusses two cross-cutting themes of research in
machine learning that are generally applicable across all
areas of geoscience. Section 6 provides concluding remarks
by briefly discussing the best practices for collaboration
between machine learning researchers and geoscientists.

2

S OURCES OF G EOSCIENCE DATA

The Earth and its major interacting components (e.g., lithosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere) are complex dynamic systems [12], [13] in which the states of the
system perpetually keep changing in space and time, in
order to create a balance of mass and energy. The elements of
the Earth system (e.g., layers in oceans, ions in air, minerals
and grains in rock, and land covers on the ground) interact
with each other through complex and dynamic geoscience
processes (e.g., rain falling on Earth’s surface and nourishing the biomass, sediments depositing on river banks and
changing river course, and magma erupting on sea floor
and forming islands).
Data about these Earth system components and geoscience processes can generally be obtained from two broad
categories of data sources: (a) observational data collected
via sensors in space, in the sea, or on the land, and (b) simulation data from physics-based models of the Earth system.
We briefly describe both these categories of gesocience data
sources in the following. A detailed review of Earth science
data sets and their properties can be found in [14].
2.1

Geoscience Observations

Information about the Earth system is collected via different
acquisition methods at varying scales of space and time
and for a variety of geoscience objectives. For example,
there is a nexus of Earth observing satellites in space that
are tasked to monitor a number of geoscience variables
such as surface temperature, humidity, optical reflectance,

and chemical compositions of the atmosphere. There is a
growing body of space research organizations ranging from
public agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), European Space Agency (ESA),
and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) to private
companies such as SpaceX that are together contributing to
the huge volume and variety of remote sensing data about
our Earth, many of which are publicly available (e.g., see
[15]). Remote sensing data provides a global picture of the
history of geoscience variables at fine spatial scales (1km
to 10m, and less) and at regular time intervals (monthly to
daily) for long periods, sometimes starting from the 1970s
(e.g., Landsat archives [16]). For targeted studies in specific
geographic regions of interest, geoscience observations can
also be collected using sensors on-board flying devices such
as unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) or airplanes, e.g., to
detect and classify sources of methane (a powerful greenhouse gas) being emitted into the atmosphere [17].
Another major source of geoscience observations is the
collection of in-situ sensors placed on ground (e.g., weather
stations) or moving in the atmosphere (e.g., weather balloons) or the ocean (e.g, ships and ocean buoys). Sensorbased observations of geoscience processes are generally
available over non-uniform grids in space and at irregular
intervals of time, sometimes even over moving bodies such
as balloons, ships, or buoys. They constitute some of the
most reliable and direct sources of information about the
Earth’s weather and climate systems and are actively maintained by public agencies such as the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [18]. Sensor-based
measurements from rain and river gauges are also central
for understanding hydrological processes such as surface
water discharge [19]. Land-based seismic sensors, Global
Positioning System (GPS)-enabled devices, and other geophysical instruments also continuously measure the Earth’s
geological structure and processes [20]. In addition, we also
have proxy measurements such as paleoclimatic records that
are sparsely available at a select few locations but go back
several thousands of years.
Given the huge variety in the characteristics of data for
different geoscience processes, it is important to identify
the type and properties of a given geoscience data set to
make utmost use of relevant data analytics methodologies.
For example, remote sensing data sets, that are commonly
available as rasters over regularly-spaced grid cells in space
and time, can be represented as geo-registered images over
individual time points or as time series data at individual
spatial locations. On the other hand, sensor measurements
from ships and ocean buoys can be represented as point
reference data (also termed as geostatistical data in the spatial statistics literature) of continous spatio-temporal fields.
Indeed, it is possible to convert one data type to another
and across different spatial and temporal resolutions using
simple interpolation methods or more advanced methods
based on physical understanding such as reanalysis techniques [21].
2.2

Earth System Model Simulations

A unique aspect of geoscience processes is that the relationships among variables or the evolution of states of the

3

system are deeply grounded in physical laws and principles, discovered by the scientific community over multiple
centuries of systematic research. For example, the motion of
water in the lithosphere, or of air in the atmosphere, is governed by principles of fluid dynamics such as the Navier–
Stokes equation. Although such physics-based equations
can sometimes be solved in closed form for small-scale
experiments, most often it is difficult to obtain their exact
solutions for complex real-world systems encountered in the
geosceiences. However, the underlying physical principles
can still be used to simulate the evolution of the states of the
Earth system using numerical models referred to as physicsbased models. Such models are the standard workhorse for
studying a majority of geoscience processes where the state
of the dynamical system can be time-stepped back in the
past or forward in the future using inputs such as initial
and boundary conditions or values of internal parameters
in physical equations. Physics-based models generate large
volumes of simulation data of different components of the
Earth system, which can be used in data-driven analyses.
They are developed and maintained by a number of centers constituting of diverse groups of researchers around
the world. For example, the World Climate Reserach Programme (WCRP) develops and distributes simulations of
General Circulation Models (GCM) of climate variables such
as sea surface temperature and pressure under the Coupled
Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) [22]. Simulations of
terrestrial processes related to the lithosphere and biosphere
are produced by the Community Land Model (CLM) [23],
developed by a number of international agencies collaborating with the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR).

3

G EOSCIENCE C HALLENGES

There are several characteristics of geoscience applications
that limit the usefulness of traditional machine learning
algorithms for knowledge discovery. Firstly, there are some
inherent challenges arising from the nature of geoscience
processes. For example, geoscience objects generally have
amorphous boundaries in space and time that are not as
crisply defined as objects in other domains, such as users
on a social networking website, or products in a retail store.
Geoscience phenomena also have spatio-temporal structure,
are highly multi-variate, follow non-linear relationships
(e.g., chaotic), show non-stationary characteristics, and often
involve rare but interesting events. Secondly, apart from the
inherent challenges of geoscience processes, the procedures
used for collecting geoscience observations introduce more
challenges for machine learning. This includes the presence
of data at multiple resolutions of space and time, with
varying degrees of noise, incompleteness, and uncertainties.
Thirdly, for supervised learning approaches, there are additional challenges due to the small sample size (e.g., small
number of historical years with adequate records) and lack
of gold-standard ground truth in geoscience applications.
In the following, we describe these three categories of geoscience challenges, namely (a) inherent challenges of geoscience processes, (b) geoscience data collection challenges,
and (c) paucity of samples and ground truth, in detail.

3.1

Inherent Challenges of Geoscience Processes

Property 1: Objects with Amorphous Boundaries
Geoscience objects include waves, flows, and coherent structures in all phases of matter. Hence, the form, structure,
and patterns of geoscience objects that can exist at multiple scales in continuous spatio-temporal fields are much
more complex than those found in discrete spaces that
machine learning algorithms typically deal with, such as
items in market basket data. For example, eddies, storms
and hurricanes dynamically deform in complicated ways
from a purely object-oriented perspective. New techniques
to consider both the pattern and dynamical information of
coherent objects and their uncertainties are being developed
[24], [25], but new methods for capturing other features of
geoscience objects, e.g., fluid segmentation and fluid feature
characterization, are needed.
Property 2: Spatiotemporal Structure
Since almost every geoscience phenomena occurs in the
realm of space and time, geoscience observations are generally auto-correlated in both space and time when observed
at appropriate spatial and temporal resolutions. For example, a location that is covered by a certain land cover label
(e.g., forest, shrubland, urban) is generally surrounded by
locations that have similar land cover labels. Land cover
labels are also consistent along time, i.e., the label at a
certain time is related to the labels in its immediate temporal
vicinity. Furthermore, if the land cover at a certain location
changes (e.g., from forest to croplands), the change generally
persists for some temporal duration instead of switching
back and forth.
Although spatio-temporal autocorrelation dictates
stronger connectivity among nearby observations in space
and time, geoscience processes can also show long-range
spatial dependencies. For example, a commonly studied
phenomenon in climate science is teleconnections [26],
[27], where two distant regions in the world show strongly
coupled activity in climate variables such as temperature or
pressure. Geoscience processes can also show long-memory
characteristics in time, e.g., the effect of climate indices such
as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) on global floods, droughts,
and forest fires [28], [29].
The inherent spatio-temporal structure of geoscience
data has several implications on machine learning methods.
This is because many of the widely used machine learning
methods are founded on the assumption that observed
variables are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d).
However, this assumption is routinely violated in geoscience problems, where variables are structurally related
to each other in the context of space and time, unless there
is a discontinuity, such as a fault, across which autocorrelation ceases to persist. Cognizance of the spatio-temporal
autocorrelation in geoscience data collected in continuous
media is crucial for the effective modeling of geophysical
phenomena.
Property 3: High Dimensionality
The Earth system is incredibly complex, with a huge number
of potential variables, which may all impact each other,
and thus many of which may have to be considered si-

4

multaneously [30]. For example, the robust and complete
detection of land cover changes, such as forest fires, requires
the analysis of multiple remote sensing variables, such as
vegetation indices and thermal anomaly signals. Capturing
the effects of these multiple variables at fine resolutions
of space and time renders geoscience data inherently high
dimensional, where the number of dimensions can easily
reach orders of millions.
As an example, in order to study processes occurring
on the Earth’s surface, even a relatively coarse resolution
data set (e.g. at 2.5o spatial resolution) may easily result in
more than 10,000 spatial grid points, where every grid point
has multiple observations in time. Furthermore, geoscience
phenomena are not limited to the Earth’s surface, but extend
beneath the Earth’s surface (e.g., in the study of groundwater, faults, or petroleum) and across multiple layers in
the atmosphere or the mantle, additionally increasing the
dimensionality of the data in 3D spatial resolutions. Hence,
there is a need to scale existing machine learning methods
to handle tens of thousands, or millions, of dimensions for
global analysis of geoscience phenomena.
Property 4: Heterogeneity in Space and Time
An interesting characteristic of geoscience processes is their
degree of variability in space and time, leading to a rich
heterogeneity in geoscience data across space and time.
For example, due to the presence of varying geographies,
vegetation types, rock formations, and climatic conditions
in different regions of the Earth, the characteristics of geoscience variables vary significantly from one location to the
other. Furthermore, the Earth system is not stationary in
time and goes through many cycles, ranging from seasonal
and decadal cycles to long-term geological changes (e.g.,
glaciation, polarity reversals) and even climate change phenomena, that impact all local processes. This heterogeneity
of geoscience processes makes it difficult to study the joint
distribution of geoscience variables across all points in space
and time. Hence, it is difficult to train machine learning
models that have good performance across all regions in
space and across all time-steps. Instead, there is a need
to build local or regional models, each corresponding to a
homogeneous group of observations.
Property 5: Interest in Rare Phenomena
In a number of geoscience problems, we are interested in
studying objects, processes, and events that occur infrequently in space and time but have major impacts on our
society and the Earth’s ecosystem. For example, extreme
weather events such as cyclones, flash floods, and heat
waves can result in huge losses of human life and property, thus making it vital to monitor them for adaptation
and mitigation requirements. These processes may relate
to emergent (or anomalous) states of the Earth system, or
other features of complex systems such as anomalous state
trajectories and basins of attractions [31]. As another example, detecting rare changes in the Earth’s biosphere such as
deforestation, insect damage, and forest fires can be helpful
in assessing the impact of human actions and informing
decisions to promote ecosystem sustainability. Identifying
such rare classes of changes and events from geoscience
data and characterizing their behavior is challenging. This

is because we often have an inadequate number of data
samples from the rare class due to the skew (imbalance)
between the classes, making their modeling and characterization difficult.
3.2

Geoscience Data Collection Challenges

Property 6: Multi-resolution Data
Geoscience data sets are often available via different sources
(e.g., satellite sensors, in-situ measurements and modelbased simulations) and at varying spatial and temporal
resolutions. These data sets may exhibit varying characteristics, such as sampling rate, accuracy, and uncertainty.
For example, in-situ sensors, such as buoys in the ocean
and hydrological and weather measuring stations, are often
irregularly spaced. As another example, collecting highresolution data of ecosystem processes, such as forest fires,
may require using aerial imageries from planes flying over
the region of interest, which may need to be combined with
coarser resolution satellite imageries available at frequent
time intervals. The analysis of multi-resolution geoscience
data sets can help us characterize processes that occur at
varying scales of space and time. For example, processes
such as plate tectonics and gravity occur at a global scale,
while local processes include volcanism, earthquakes, and
landslides. To handle multi-resolution data, a common approach is to build a bridge between data sets at disparate
scales (e.g., using interpolation techniques), so that they
can be represented at the same resolution. We also need to
develop algorithms that can identify patterns at multiple
resolutions without upsampling all the data sets to the
highest resolution.
Property 7: Noise, Incompleteness, and Uncertainty in
Data
Many geoscience data sets (e.g., those collected by Earth
observing satellite sensors) are plagued with noise and
missing values. For example, sensors may temporarily fail
due to malfunctions or severe weather conditions, resulting in missing data. Additionally, changes in measuring
equipment, e.g., replacing a faulty sensor or switching from
one satellite generation to the next, may change the interpretation of sensor values over time, making it difficult to
deploy a consistent methodology of analysis across different
time periods. In many geoscience applications, the signal of
interest can be small in magnitude compared to the magnitude of noise. Furthermore, many sensor properties can
increase noise, such as sensor interference, e.g., in the case
of remotely sensed land surface data, where atmospheric
(clouds and other aerosols) and surface (snow and ice)
interference are constantly encountered.
Many geoscience variables cannot even be measured
directly, but can only be inferred from other observations
or model simulations. For example, one can use airborne
imaging spectrometers to detect sources of methane (e.g.,
pipeline leaks), an important greenhouse gas. These instruments fly overhead surveys and map the ground-reflected
sunlight arriving at the sensor. Methane plumes can then
be identified from excess sunlight absorption [32]. But to
determine the leak rate (flux) and the resulting greenhouse
gas impact, one must also know how fast the excess methane
mass is dispersing. This requires considering the influence

5

of air transport, which in turn requires steady-state physical
assumptions, morphology-based plume modeling, or direct
in-situ measurements of the wind speed. Even data generated from model outputs have uncertainties because of our
imperfect knowledge of the initial and boundary conditions
of the system or the parametric forms of approximations
used in the model.

develop machine learning methods that can learn parsimonious models even in the paucity of labeled data. Another
possibility is to construct synthetic data sets through simulations [33] or perturbation that can be used for training [34],
to make the most of the few observations.

3.3

Geoscientists constantly strive to develop better approaches
for modeling the current state of the Earth system (e.g., how
much methane is escaping into the atmosphere right now,
which parts of Earth are covered by what kind of biomass)
and its evolution, as well as the connections within and
between all of its subsystems (e.g., how does a warming
ocean affects specific ecosystems). This is aimed at advancing our scientific understanding of geoscience processes.
This can also help in providing actionable information (e.g.,
extreme weather warnings) or informing policy decisions
that directly impact our society (e.g., adapting to climate
change and progressing towards sustainable lifestyles). The
boundaries between these goals often blur in practice, e.g.,
an improved tornado model may simultaneously lead to a
better science model as well as a more effective warning
system.
Viewing from the lens of geosciences, many methods
from machine learning are a natural fit for the problems
encountered in geoscience applications. For example, classification and pattern recognition methods are useful for
characterizing objects such as extreme weather events or
swarms of foreshocks or aftershocks (tremors preceding or
following an earthquake), estimating geoscience variables,
and producing long-term forecasts of the state of the Earth
system. As another example, approaches for mining relationships and causal attribution can provide insights into
the inner workings of the Earth system and support policy
making. In the following, we briefly describe five broad
categories of geoscience problems, and discuss promising
machine learning directions and examples of some recent
successes that are relevant for each problem.

Paucity of Samples and Ground Truth

Property 8: Small sample size
The number of samples in geoscience data sets is often
limited in both space and time. Factors that limit sample
size include history of data collection and the nature of phenomenon being measured. For example, most satellite products are only available since the 1970s, and when monthly
(yearly) processes are considered, this means that less than
600 (50) samples are available. Furthermore, there are many
events in geosciences that are important to monitor but
occur very infrequently, thus resulting in small sample sizes.
For example, a majority of land cover changes, landslide,
tsunami, and forest fire are rare events, and only occur for
short temporal durations mostly over small spatial regions.
With less than 80 years of reliable sensor-based data, only a
few dozens of rare events are available as training data.
The limited spatial and temporal resolution of some geoscience variables is also limited by the nature of observation
methodology. For example, paleo-climate data are derived
from coral, lake sediments (varves), tree rings, and deep
ice core samples, which are only available at a few places
around the Earth. Similarly, early records of precipitation
only exist in areas covered by land.
This is in contrast to commercial applications involving
Internet-scale data, e.g., text mining or object recognition,
where large volumes of labeled or unlabeled data have been
one of the major factors behind the success of machine
learning methodologies such as deep learning. The limited
number of samples in geoscience applications along with
the large number of physical variables result in problems
that are under-constrained in nature, requiring novel machine learning advances for their robust analyses.
Property 9: Paucity of Ground Truth
Even though many geoscience applications involve large
amounts of data, e.g., global observations of ecosystem variables at high spatial and temporal resolutions using Earth
observing satellites, a common feature of geoscience problems is the paucity of labeled samples with gold-standard
ground truth. This is because high-quality measurements of
several geoscience variables can only be taken by expensive
apparatus such as low-flying airplanes, or tedious and timeconsuming operations such as field-based surveys, which
severely limit the collection of ground truth samples. Other
geoscience processes (e.g., subsurface flow of water) do not
have ground truth at all, since, due to complexity of the
system, the exact state of the system is never fully known.
The paucity of representative training samples can result
in poor performance for many machine learning methods,
either due to underfitting where the model is too simple,
or due to overfitting where the model is overly complex
relative to the dimensionality of features and the limited
number of training samples. Hence, there is a need to

4

4.1

G EOSCIENCE P ROBLEMS AND ML D IRECTIONS

Characterizing Objects and Events

Machine learning algorithms can help in characterizing
objects and events in geosciences that are critical for understanding the Earth system. For example, we can analyze
patterns in geoscience data sets to detect climate events
such as cyclogenesis and tornadogenesis, and discover their
precursors for predicting them with long leads in time. Analyzing spatial and temporal patterns in geoscience data can
also help in studying the formation and movement of climate objects such as weather fronts, atmospheric rivers, and
ocean eddies, which are major drivers of vital geoscience
processes such as the transfer of precipitation, energy, and
nutrients in the atmosphere and ocean.
While traditional approaches for characterizing geoscience objects and events are primarily based on the use
of hand-coded features (e.g., ad-hoc rules on size and
shape constraints for finding ocean eddies [35]), machine
learning algorithms can enable their automated detection
from data with improved performance using pattern mining
techniques. However, in the presence of spatio-temporal

6

objects with amorphous boundaries and their associated
uncertainties [25], there is a need to develop pattern mining
approaches that can account for the spatial and temporal
properties of geoscience data while characterizing objects
and events. One such approach has been successfully used
for finding spatio-temporal patterns in sea surface height
data [36], [37], resulting in the creation of a global catalogue of mesoscale ocean eddies [38]. Another approach for
finding anomalous objects buried under the surface of the
Earth (e.g., land mines) from radar images was explored
in [39], using unsupervised techniques that can work with
mediums of varying properties. The use of topic models has
also been explored for finding extreme events from climate
time series data [40].
4.2 Estimating Geoscience Variables from Observations
There is a great opportunity for machine learning methods to infer critical geoscience variables that are difficult
to monitor directly, e.g., methane concentrations in air or
groundwater seepage in soil, using information about other
variables collected via satellites and ground-based sensors,
or simulated using Earth system models. For example, supervised machine learning algorithms can be used to analyze remote sensing data and produce estimates of ecosystem variables such as forest cover, health of vegetation,
water quality, and surface water availability, at fine spatial
scales and at regular intervals of time. Such estimates of
geoscience variables can help in informing management decisions and enabling scientific studies of changes occurring
on the Earth’s surface.
A major challenge in the use of supervised learning
approaches for estimating geoscience variables is the heterogeneity in the characteristics of variables across space and
time. One way to address this challenge of heterogeneity is
to explore multi-task learning frameworks [41], [42], where
the learning of a model at every homogeneous partition of
the data is considered as a separate task, and the models
are shared across similar tasks to regularize their learning
and avoid the problem of overfitting, especially when some
tasks suffer from paucity of training samples. An example
of a multi-task learning based approach for handling heterogeneity can be found in a recent work in [43], where the
learning of a forest cover model at every vegetation type
(discovered by clustering vegetation time-series at locations)
was treated as a separate task, and the similarity among
vegetation types (extracted using hierarchical clustering
techniques) was used to share the learning at related tasks.
Figure 1 shows the improvement in prediction performance
of forest cover in Brazil using a multi-task learning approach. A detailed review of promising machine learning
advances such as multi-task learning, multi-view learning,
and multi-instance learning for addressing the challenges in
supervised monitoring of land cover changes from remote
sensing data is presented in [44].
To address the non-stationary nature of climate data,
online learning algorithms have been developed to combine
the ensemble outputs of expert predictors (climate models)
and produce robust estimates of climate variables such as
temperature [45], [46]. In this line of work, weights over

experts were updated in an adaptive way across space and
time, to capture the right structure of non-stationarity in the
data. This was shown to significantly outperform the the
baseline technique used in climate science, which is the nonadaptive mean over experts (multi-model mean). Another
approach for addressing non-stationarity was explored in
[47], where a Bayesian mixture of models was learned for
downscaling climate variables, where a different model was
learned for every homogeneous cluster of locations in space.
In a recent work, adaptive ensemble learning methods [48],
[49], in conjunction with physics-based label refinement
techniques [50], have been developed to address the challenge of heterogeneity and poor data quality for mapping
the dynamics of surface water bodies using remote sensing
data [51]. This has enabled the creation of a global surface
water monitoring system (publicly available at [52]) that is
able to discover a variety of changes in surface water such
as shrinking lakes due to droughts, melting glacial lakes,
migrating river courses, and constructions of new dams and
reservoirs.
Another challenge in the supervised estimation of geoscience variables is the small sample size and paucity of
ground-truth labels. Methods for handling the problem of
high dimensions and small sample sizes have been explored
in [53], where sparsity-inducing regularizers such as sparse
group Lasso were developed to model the domain characteristics of climate variables. To address the paucity of
labels, novel learning frameworks such as semi-supervised
learning, that leverages the structure in the unlabeled data
for improving classification performance [54], and active
learning, where an expert annotator is actively involved
in the process of model building [55], have huge potential
for improving the state-of-the-art in estimation problems
encountered in gesocience applications [56], [57]. In a recent
line of work, attempts to build a machine learning model to
predict forest fires in the tropics using remote sensing data
led to a novel methodology for building predictive models
for rare phenomena [58] that can be applied in any setting
where it is not possible to get high quality labeled data even
for a small set of samples, but poor quality labels (perhaps
in the form of heuristics) are available for all samples.
In addition to supervised learning approaches, given
the plentiful availability of unlabeled data in geoscience
applications such as remote sensing, there are several opportunities for unsupervised learning methods in estimating
geoscience variables. For example, changes in time series
of vegetation data, collected by satellite instruments on
fixed time intervals at every spatial location on the Earth’s
surface, have been extensively studied using unsupervised
learning approaches for mapping land cover changes such
as deforestation, insect damage, farm conversions, and forest fires [59], [60], [61].
4.3

Long-term Forecasting of Geoscience Variables

Predicting long-term trends of the state of the Earth system,
e.g., forecasting geoscience variables ahead in time, can help
in modeling future scenarios and devising early resource
planning and adaptation policies. One approach for generating forecasts of geoscience variables is to run physicsbased model simulations, which basically encode geoscience

7

a future task with limited number of training samples.

4.4

(a) Absolute resdiual errors of the (b) Absolute resdiual errors of the
baseline method.
multi-task learning method presented in [43].
Fig. 1. Performance improvement in estimation of forest cover in four
states of Brazil using a multi-task learning method. Figure courtesy:
Karpatne et al. [44].

processes using state-based dynamical systems where the
current state of the system is influenced by previous states
and observations using physical laws and principles. From a
machine learning perspective, this can be treated as a timeseries regression problem where the future conditions of a
geoscience variable has to be predicted based on present and
past conditions. Some of the existing methods for time-series
forecasting include exponential smoothing techniques [62],
autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models
[63], state-space models [64], and probabilistic models such
as hidden Markov models and Kalman filters [65], [66].
Machine learning methods for forecasting climate variables
using the spatial and temporal structure of geoscience data
have been explored in recent works such as [67], [68], [69],
[70].
A key challenge in predicting the long-term trends of
geoscience variables is to develop approaches that can
represent and propagate prediction uncertainties, which is
particularly difficult due to the high-dimensional and nonstationary nature of geoscience processes [71], [72]. In the
climate scenario, there is limited long-term predictability
at fine spatial scales necessary for implementing policy
decisions. Some advances have been made in downscaling
future projections to high spatial resolutions, e.g., using
physics-based Markov Chain and Random Field models
[73], but much remains to be done. Further, the data is
sparse, and the uncertainty distributions remain poorly
sampled [74], [75]. The heavy-tailed nature of extreme
events such as cyclones and floods further exacerbates the
challenges in producing their long-term forecasts. In a recent
work [67], regression models based on extreme value theory
have been developed to automatically discover sparse temporal dependencies and make predictions in multivariate
extreme value time series. Other approaches for predicting
extreme weather events such as abnormally high rainfall,
floods, and tornadoes using climate data have also been
explored in [76], [77], [78]. Effective prediction of geoscience
variables can benefit from recent advances in machine
learning such as transfer learning [79], where the model
trained on a present task (with sufficient number of training
samples) is used to improve the prediction performance on

Mining Relationships in Geoscience Data

An important problem in geoscience applications is to understand how different physical processes are related to
each other, e.g., periodic changes in the sea surface temperature over eastern Pacific Ocean—also known as the El NiñoSouthern Oscillation (ENSO)—and their impact on several
terrestrial events such as floods, droughts, and forest fires
[28], [29]. Identifying such relationships from geoscience
data can help us capture vital signs of the Earth system
and advance our understanding of geoscience processes. A
common class of relationships that is studied in the climate
domain is teleconnections, which are pairs of distant regions
that are highly correlated in climate variables such as sea
level pressure or temperature. One of the widely-studied
category of teleconnections is dipoles [27], [80], which are
pairs of regions with strong negative correlations (e.g., the
ENSO phenomena). There is a huge potential in discovering such relationships using data-driven approaches, that
can sift through vast volumes of observational and modelbased geoscience data and discover interesting patterns
corresponding to geoscience relationships.
One of the first attempts in discovering relationships
from climate data is a seminal work by Steinbach et al.
[81]. In this work, graph-based representations of global
climate data were constructed in which each node represents a location on the Earth and an edge represents
the similarity (e.g., correlation) between the climate time
series observed at a pair of locations. Dipoles and other
higher-order relationships (e.g., tripoles involving triplets of
regions) could then be discovered from climate graphs using
clustering and pattern mining approaches. Another family
of approaches for mining relationships in climate science is
based on representing climate graphs as complex networks
[82]. This includes approaches for examining the structure
of the climate system [83], studying hurricane activity [84],
and finding communities in climate networks [85], [86].
Formidable challenges arise in the problem of relationship mining due to the enormous search space of candidate
relationships, and the need to simultaneously extract spatiotemporal objects, their relationships, and their dynamics,
from noisy and incomplete geoscience data. Hence, there
is a need for novel approaches that can directly discover
the relationships as well as the interacting objects [27], [87].
For example, recent work on the development of such approaches have led to the discovery of previously unknown
climate phenomena [88], [89], [90].

4.5

Causal Discovery and Causal Attribution

Discovering cause-effect relationships is an important task
in the geosciences, closely related to the task of learning
relationships in geoscience data, discussed in Subsection
4.4. The two primary frameworks for analyzing cause-effect
relationships are based on the concept of Granger causality
[91], which defines causality in terms of predictability, and
on the concept of Pearl causality [92], which defines causality
in terms of changes resulting from intervention. Currently,

8

problems of geosciences. This includes deep learning and
the paradigm of theory-guided data science, as described
below.

°

180 E
°

°

150 E

150 W

120° E

120° W

5.1

90° E

90° W

60° E

60° W

30° E

30° W
°

0

Fig. 2. Network plot for Northern hemisphere generated from daily
geopotential height data using constraint-based structure learning of
graphical models. The resulting arrows represent the pathways of storm
tracks, see [96].

the most common tool for causality analysis in the geosciences is bivariate Granger analysis, followed by multivariate Granger analysis using vector autoregression (VAR)
models [93], but the latter is still not commonly used. Pearl’s
framework based on probabilistic graphical models has only
rarely been used in the geosciences to date [33], [94], [95].
The fact that such multi-variate causality tools, which have
yielded tremendous breakthroughs in biology and medicine
over the past decade, are still not commonly used in the
geosciences, is in stark contrast to the huge potential these
methods have for tackling numerous geoscience problems.
These range from variable selection for estimation and prediction tasks to identifying causal pathways of interactions
around the globe, (see Figure 2), and causal attribution [93],
[95]. The latter is discussed in more detail below.
Many components of the Earth system are affected by
human actions, thus introducing the need for integrating
policy actions in the modeling approaches. The outputs
produced by geoscience models can help inform policy and
decision making. The science of causal attribution is an
essential tool for decision making that helps scientists determine the causes of events. The framework of causal calculus
[97] provides a concise terminology for causal attribution of
extreme weather and climate events [95]. Methods based on
Graphical Granger models have also been proposed [93], but
neither framework has been widely used. Of great interest
is the development of decision methodology with uncertain
prediction probabilities, producing ambiguous risk with
poorly resolved tails representing the most interesting extreme, rare, and transient events produced by models. The
application of reinforcement learning and other stochastic
dynamic programming approaches that can solve decision
problems with ambiguous risk [98] are promising directions
that need to be pursued.

5

C ROSS - CUTTING R ESEARCH T HEMES

In this section, we discuss two emerging themes of machine
learning research that are generally applicable across all

Deep Learning

Artificial neural networks have had a long and winding
history spanning more than six decades of research, starting
from humble origins with the perceptron algorithm in 1960s
to present-day “deep” architectures consisting of several
layers of hidden nodes, dubbed as deep learning [99]. The
power of deep learning can be attributed to its use of a
deep hierarchy of latent features (learned at hidden nodes),
where complex features are represented as compositions of
simpler features. This, in conjunction with the availability of
big labeled data sets [100], computational advancements for
training large networks, and algorithmic improvements for
back-propagating errors across deep layers of hidden nodes
have revolutionized several areas of machine learning, such
as supervised, semi-supervised, and reinforcement learning.
Deep learning has resulted in major success stories in a wide
range of commercial applications, such as computer vision,
speech recognition, and natural language translation.
Given the ability of deep learning methods to extract
relevant features automatically from the data, they have
a huge potential in geoscience problems where it is difficult to build hand-coded features for objects, events, and
relationships from complex geoscience data. Owing to the
space-time nature of geoscience data, geoscience problems
share some similarity with problems in computer vision and
speech recognition, where deep learning has achieved major
accomplishments using frameworks such as convolutional
neural networks (CNN) and recurrent neural networks
(RNN), respectively. For example, if a CNN can learn to
recognize objects such as cats in images, it could also be
used to recognize objects and events such as tornadoes,
hurricanes, and atmospheric rivers, which show structural
features (e.g., sinkholes) in geoscience data. Indeed, the
use of CNNs for detecting extreme weather events from
climate model simulations has recently been explored in
[101], [102]. Similarly, RNN based frameworks such as longshort-term-memory (LSTM) models have been explored for
mapping plantations in Southeast Asia from remote sensing
data, using spatial as well as temporal properties of the
dynamics of plantation conversions [103], [104], [105]. Such
frameworks are able to extract the right length of memory
needed for making predictions in time, and thus can be
useful for forecasting geoscience variables with appropriate
lead times. Deep learning based frameworks have also been
explored for downscaling outputs of Earth system models
and generating climate change projections at local scales
[106], and classifying objects such as trees and buildings
in high-resolution satellite images [107]. These efforts highlight the promise of using deep learning to obtain similar
accomplishments in geosciences as in the commercial arena,
by incorporating the characteristics of geoscience processes
(e.g., spatio-temporal structure) in deep learning frameworks. While the availability of large volumes of labeled
data have been one of the major factors behind the success
of deep learning in commercial domains, a key challenge
in geoscience problems is the paucity of labeled samples,

9

thus limiting the effectiveness of traditional deep learning
methods. There is thus a need to develop novel deep learning frameworks for geoscience problems, that can overcome
the paucity of labeled data, for example, by using domainspecific information of physical processes.

5.2

Theory-Guided Data Science

Given the complexity of problems in geoscience applications
and the limitations of current methodological frameworks
in geosciences (e.g., see recent debate papers in hydrology
[108], [109], [110]), neither a data-only, nor a physics-only,
approach can be considered sufficient for knowledge discovery. Instead, there is an opportunity to pursue an alternate
paradigm of research that explores the continuum between
physics (or theory)-based models and data science methods
by deeply integrating scientific knowledge in data science
methodologies, termed as the paradigm of theory-guided
data science [111]. For example, scientific consistency can
be weaved in the learning objectives of predictive learning
algorithms, such that the learned models are not only less
complex and show low training errors, but are also consistent with existing scientific knowledge. This can help in
pruning large spaces of models that are inconsistent with
our physical understanding, thus reducing the variance
without likely affecting the bias. Hence, by anchoring machine learning frameworks with scientific knowledge, the
learned models can stand a better chance against overfitting,
especially when training data are scarce. For example, a recent work explored the use of physics-guided loss functions
for tracking objects in sequences of images [112], where
elementary knowledge of laws of motion was solely used
for constraining outputs and learning models, without the
help of training labels. Another motivation for learning
physically consistent models and solutions is that they can
be easily understood by domain scientists and ingested
in existing knowledge bases, thus translating to scientific
advancements.
The paradigm of theory-guided data science is beginning
to be pursued in several scientific disciplines ranging from
material science to hydrology, turbulence modeling, and
biomedicine. A recent paper [111] builds the foundation
of this paradigm and illustrates several ways of blending scientific knowledge with data science models, using
emerging applications from diverse domains. There is a
great opportunity for exploring similar lines of research in
geoscience applications, where machine learning methods
can play a major role in accelerating knowledge discovery
by automatically learning patterns and models from the
data, but without ignoring the wealth of knowledge accumulated in physics-based model representations of geoscience processes [75]. This can complement existing efforts
in the geosciences on integrating data in physics-based
models, e.g., in model calibration, where parametric forms
of approximations used in models are learned from the data
by solving inverse problems, or in data assimilation, where
the sequence of state transitions of the system are informed
by measurements of observed variables wherever available
[113].

6

C ONCLUSIONS

The Earth System is a place of great scientific interest that
impacts every aspect of life on this planet and beyond.
The survey of challenges, problems, and promising machine
learning directions provided in this article is clearly not
exhaustive, but it illustrates the great emerging possibilities
of future machine learning research in this important area.
Successful application of machine learning techniques in
the geosciences is generally driven by a science question
arising in the geosciences, and the best recipe for success
tends to be for a machine learning researcher to collaborate very closely with a geoscientist during all phases of
research. That is because the geoscientists are in a better
position to understand which science question is novel and
important, which variables and data set to use to answer
that question, the strengths and weaknesses inherent in
the data collection process that yielded the data set, and
which pre-processing steps to apply, such as smoothing or
removing seasonal cycles. Likewise, the machine learning
researchers are better placed to decide which data analysis
methods are available and appropriate for the data, the
strengths and weaknesses of those methods, and what they
can realistically achieve. Interpretability is also an important
end goal in geosciences because if we can understand the
basic reasoning behind the patterns, models, or relationships
extracted from the data, they can be used as building blocks
in scientific knowledge discovery. Hence, choosing methods
that are inherently transparent are generally preferred in
most geoscience applications. Further, the end results of a
study need to be translated into geoscience language so
that it can be related back to the original science questions.
Hence, frequent communication between the researchers
avoids long detours and ensures that the outcome of the
analysis is indeed rewarding for both machine learning
researchers and geoscientists [114].

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this paper are supported by inter-disciplinary
projects at the interface of machine learning and geoscience,
including the NSF Expeditions in Computing grant on
“Understanding Climate Change: A Data-driven Approach”
(Award #1029711), the NSF-funded 2015 IS-GEO workshop
(Award #1533930), and subsequent Research Collaboration
Network (EarthCube RCN IS-GEO: Intelligent Systems Research to Support Geosciences, Award #1632211). The vision outlined in this paper has been greatly influenced by
the collaborative works in these projects. In particular, the
description of geoscience challenges in Section 3 has been
movtiated by the initial discussions at the 2015 IS-GEO
workshop (see workshop report [115]).

R EFERENCES
[1]

[2]
[3]

R. W. Kates, W. C. Clark, R. Corell, J. M. Hall, C. C. Jaeger, I. Lowe,
J. J. McCarthy, H. J. Schellnhuber, B. Bolin, N. M. Dickson et al.,
“Sustainability science,” Science, vol. 292, no. 5517, pp. 641–642,
2001.
F. Press, “Earth science and society,” Nature, vol. 451, no. 7176, p.
301, 2008.
W. V. Reid, D. Chen, L. Goldfarb, H. Hackmann, Y. T. Lee,
K. Mokhele, E. Ostrom, K. Raivio, J. Rockström, H. J. Schellnhuber et al., “Earth system science for global sustainability: grand
challenges,” Science, vol. 330, no. 6006, pp. 916–917, 2010.

10

[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]

[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]

[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]

[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]

[27]

[28]
[29]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change
2014–Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Regional Aspects. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Imme Ebert-Uphoff et al., “Climate Informatics,” http://
climateinformatics.org, 2017.
NSF Expeditions in Computing, “Understanding Climate
Change: A data-driven Approach,” http://climatechange.cs.
umn.edu/, 2017.
American Geophysical Union, “Earth & Space Sciences Informatics,” http://essi.agu.org/, 2017.
NSF-funded Research Collaboration Network, “Intelligent Systems for Geosciences,” https://is-geo.org/, 2017.
J. H. Faghmous and V. Kumar, “A big data guide to understanding climate change: The case for theory-guided data science,” Big
data, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 155–163, 2014.
C. Monteleoni, G. A. Schmidt, and S. McQuade, “Climate informatics: accelerating discovering in climate science with machine
learning,” Computing in Science & Engineering, vol. 15, no. 5, pp.
32–40, 2013.
J. H. Faghmous, V. Kumar, and S. Shekhar, “Computing and
climate,” Computing in Science & Engineering, vol. 17, no. 6, pp.
6–8, 2015.
N. Stillings, “Complex systems in the geosciences and in geoscience learning,” Geological Society of America Special Papers, vol.
486, pp. 97–111, 2012.
A. Carbone, M. Jensen, and A.-H. Sato, “Challenges in data science: a complex systems perspective,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals,
vol. 90, pp. 1–7, 2016.
A. Karpatne and S. Liess, “A guide to earth science data: Summary and research challenges,” Computing in Science & Engineering, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 14–18, 2015.
U.S. Geological Survey, “Land Processes Distributed Active
Archive Center,” https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/, 2017.
NASA and USGS, “Landsat Data Archive,” https://landsat.gsfc.
nasa.gov/data/, 2017.
C. Frankenberg, A. K. Thorpe, D. R. Thompson, G. Hulley, E. A.
Kort, N. Vance, J. Borchardt, T. Krings, K. Gerilowski, C. Sweeney
et al., “Airborne methane remote measurements reveal heavytail flux distribution in four corners region,” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, p. 201605617, 2016.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “National
Centers for Environmental Information,” https://www.ncdc.
noaa.gov/, 2017.
World Meteorological Organisation, “Global Runoff Data Centre,” http://www.bafg.de/GRDC/, 2017.
National Science Foundation, “EarthScope,” http://www.
earthscope.org/, 2017.
E. Kalnay, M. Kanamitsu, R. Kistler, W. Collins, D. Deaven,
L. Gandin, M. Iredell, S. Saha, G. White, J. Woollen et al., “The
ncep/ncar 40-year reanalysis project,” Bulletin of the American
meteorological Society, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 437–471, 1996.
World Climate Research Programme, “Coupled Model Intercomparison Project,” http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/, 2017.
National Corporation for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), “Community Land Model,” http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/
clm/, 2017.
S. Ravela, “A statistical theory of inference for coherent structures,” LNCS, vol. 8964, pp. 121–133, 2015.
S. Ravela, “Quantifying uncertainty for coherent structures,”
Procedia Computer Science, vol. 9, p. 11871196, 2012.
J. M. Wallace, J. M. Gutzler, and S. David, “Teleconnections in
the geopotential height field during the northern hemisphere
winter,” Monthly Weather Review, vol. 109, no. 4, pp. 784–812,
1981.
J. Kawale, S. Liess, A. Kumar, M. Steinbach, P. Snyder, V. Kumar,
A. R. Ganguly, N. F. Samatova, and F. Semazzi, “A graphbased approach to find teleconnections in climate data,” Statistical
Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal, Wiley
Online Library, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 158–179, 2013.
F. Siegert, G. Ruecker, A. Hinrichs, and A. A. Hoffmann, “Increased damage from fires in logged forests during droughts
caused by el ni no,” Nature, vol. 414, no. 6862, pp. 437–440, 2001.
P. J. Ward, B. Jongman, M. Kummu, M. D. Dettinger, F. C. S.
Weiland, and H. C. Winsemius, “Strong influence of el ni no
southern oscillation on flood risk around the world,” Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 111, no. 44, pp. 15 659–
15 664, 2014.

[30]
[31]
[32]

[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]

[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]

[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]
[53]

C. Wunsch, Discrete Inverse and State Estimation Problems With
Geophysical Fluid Applications. 371 pp: Cambridge University
Press, 2006.
H. Babaie and A. Davarpanah, “Ontology of earth’s nonlinear
dynamic complex systems,” in EGU General Assembly Conference
Abstracts, vol. 19, 2017, p. 11198.
D. R. Thompson, I. Leifer, H. Bovensmann, M. Eastwood,
M. Fladeland, C. Frankenberg, and K. G. al., “Real-time remote
detection and measurement for airborne imaging spectroscopy:
a case study with methane,” Atmospheric Measurement Techniques,
vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 4383–4397, 2015.
I. Ebert-Uphoff and Y. Deng, “Causal discovery in the geosciences
- using synthetic data to learn how to interpret results,” Computer
& Geosciences, vol. 99, pp. 50–60, February 2017.
S. Ravela, A. Torralba, and W. T. Freeman, “An ensemble prior
of image structure for cross-modal inference,” ICCV, vol. 1, pp.
871–876, 2005.
D. B. Chelton, M. G. Schlax, R. M. Samelson, and R. A. de Szoeke,
“Global observations of large oceanic eddies,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 34, no. 15, 2007.
J. H. Faghmous, M. Le, M. Uluyol, V. Kumar, and S. Chatterjee, “A parameter-free spatio-temporal pattern mining model to
catalog global ocean dynamics,” Data Mining (ICDM), IEEE 13th
International Conference on, pp. 151–160, 2013.
J. H. Faghmous, H. Nguyen, M. Le, and V. Kumar, “Spatiotemporal consistency as a means to identify unlabeled objects
in a continuous data field,” AAAI, pp. 410–416, 2014.
J. H. Faghmous, I. Frenger, Y. Yao, R. Warmka, A. Lindell, and
V. Kumar, “A daily global mesoscale ocean eddy dataset from
satellite altimetry,” Nature Scientific data, vol. 2, 2015.
U. Peer and J. G. Dy, “Automated target detection for geophysical
applications,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 1563–1572, 2017.
C. Tang and C. Monteleoni, “Can topic modeling shed light on
climate extremes?” Computing in Science & Engineering, vol. 17,
no. 6, pp. 43–52, 2015.
J. Baxter et al., “A model of inductive bias learning,” J. Artif. Intell.
Res.(JAIR), vol. 12, no. 149-198, p. 3, 2000.
R. Caruana, “Multitask learning: A knowledge-based source of
inductive bias,” in Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference
on Machine Learning, 1993, pp. 41–48.
A. Karpatne, A. Khandelwal, S. Boriah, S. Chatterjee, and V. Kumar, “Predictive learning in the presence of heterogeneity and
limited training data,” in Proceedings of the SIAM International
Conference on Data Mining, 2014, pp. 253–261.
A. Karpatne, Z. Jiang, R. R. Vatsavai, S. Shekhar, and V. Kumar,
Monitoring Land-Cover Changes. IEEE Geoscience and Remote
Sensing Magazine, 2016.
C. Monteleoni, G. A. Schmidt, S. Saroha, and E. Asplund, “Tracking climate models,” Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA
Data Science Journal, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 372–392, 2011.
S. McQuade and C. Monteleoni, “Global climate model tracking
using geospatial neighborhoods.” in AAAI, 2012.
D. Das, J. Dy, J. Ross, Z. Obradovic, and A. Ganguly, “Nonparametric bayesian mixture of sparse regressions with application towards feature selection for statistical downscaling,” Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1145–1157, 2014.
A. Karpatne and V. Kumar, “Adaptive heterogeneous ensemble
learning using the context of test instances,” in Data Mining
(ICDM), 2015 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2015, pp.
787–792.
A. Karpatne, A. Khandelwal, and V. Kumar, “Ensemble learning
methods for binary classification with multi-modality within the
classes,” in SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM),
no. 82, 2015, pp. 730–738.
A. Khandelwal, V. Mithal, and V. Kumar, “Post classification
label refinement using implicit ordering constraint among data
instances,” in Data Mining (ICDM), 2015 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2015, pp. 799–804.
A. Khandelwal, A. Karpatne, M. E. Marlier, J. Kim, D. P. Lettenmaier, and V. Kumar, “An approach for global monitoring of
surface water extent variations in reservoirs using modis data,”
Remote Sensing of Environment, 2017.
University of Minnesota, “Global Surface Water Monitoring System,” http://z.umn.edu/watermonitor/, 2017.
S. Chatterjee, K. Steinhaeuser, A. Banerjee, S. Chatterjee, and
A. Ganguly, “Sparse group lasso: Consistency and climate appli-

11

[54]
[55]
[56]

[57]

[58]
[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]

[77]

cations,” in Proceedings of the 2012 SIAM International Conference
on Data Mining. SIAM, 2012, pp. 47–58.
X. Zhu, “Semi-supervised learning literature survey,” Tech. Report. University of Wisconsin, vol. 1530, December 2007.
B. Settles, “Active learning literature survey,” Comp Science Tech.
Rep. , University of Wisconsin, Madison, vol. 1648, 2010.
R. R. Vatsavai, S. Shekhar, and T. E. Burk, “A semi-supervised
learning method for remote sensing data mining,” in Tools with
Artificial Intelligence, 2005. ICTAI 05. 17th IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2005, pp. 5–pp.
D. Tuia, F. Ratle, F. Pacifici, M. F. Kanevski, and W. J. Emery, “Active learning methods for remote sensing image classification,”
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 47, no. 7,
pp. 2218–2232, 2009.
V. Mithal, G. Nayak, A. Khandelwal, V. Kumar, N. C. Oza, and
R. Nemani, “Rapt: Rare class prediction in absence of true labels,”
IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2017.
J. Verbesselt, R. Hyndman, A. Zeileis, and D. Culvenor, “Phenological change detection while accounting for abrupt and
gradual trends in satellite image time series,” Remote Sensing of
Environment, vol. 114, no. 12, pp. 2970–2980, 2010.
V. Mithal, A. Garg, S. Boriah, M. Steinbach, V. Kumar, C. Potter,
S. Klooster, and J. C. Castilla-Rubio, “Monitoring global forest
cover using data mining,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems
and Technology (TIST), vol. 2, no. 4, p. 36, 2011.
V. Chandola and R. R. Vatsavai, “A scalable gaussian process
analysis algorithm for biomass monitoring,” Statistical Analysis
and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal, vol. 4, no. 4, pp.
430–445, 2011.
E. S. Gardner, “Exponential smoothing: The state of the art–part
ii,” in I J Forecasting, vol. 22, no. 4. Elsevier, 2006, pp. 637–666.
G. E. Box and G. M. Jenkins, Time series analysis: forecasting and
control. Holden-Day, 1976.
M. Aoki, State space modeling of time series. Springer Science &
Business Media, 2013.
L. Rabiner and B. Juang, “An introduction to hidden markov
models,” ASSP, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 4–16, 1986.
A. C. Harvey, Forecasting, structural time series models and the
Kalman filter. Cambridge U Press, 1990.
Y. Liu, T. Bahadori, and H. Li, “Sparse-gev: Sparse latent space
model for multivariate extreme value time serie modeling,” arXiv
preprint arXiv:1206.4685, 2012.
A. McGovern, D. J. Gagne, J. Basara, T. M. Hamill, and D. Margolin, “Solar energy prediction: an international contest to initiate
interdisciplinary research on compelling meteorological problems,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 96, no. 8,
pp. 1388–1395, 2015.
D. J. Gagne II, A. McGovern, J. Brotzge, M. Coniglio, J. Correia Jr,
and M. Xue, “Day-ahead hail prediction integrating machine
learning with storm-scale numerical weather models.” in AAAI,
2015, pp. 3954–3960.
D. J. Gagne, A. McGovern, S. E. Haupt, R. A. Sobash, J. K.
Williams, and M. Xue, “Storm-based probabilistic hail forecasting
with machine learning applied to convection-allowing ensembles,” Weather and Forecasting, no. 2017, 2017.
Y. Gel, A. E. Raftery, and T. Gneiting, “Calibrated probabilistic
mesoscale weather field forecasting: The geostatistical output
perturbation method,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 99, no. 467, pp. 575–583, 2004.
Y. R. Gel, V. Lyubchich, and S. E. Ahmed, “Catching uncertainty
of wind: A blend of sieve bootstrap and regime switching models
for probabilistic short-term forecasting of wind speed,” in Advances in Time Series Methods and Applications. Springer New
York, 2016, pp. 279–293.
K. Emanuel, S. Ravela, C. Risi, and E. Vivant, “A statistical
deterministic approach to hurricane risk assessment,” Bulletin of
American Meteorological Society, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 299–314, 2006.
S. Ravela, “Amplitude-position formulation of data assimilation,” LNCS, vol. 3993, pp. 497–505, 2006.
S. Ravela and A. Sandu, Eds., Dynamic Data-driven Environmental
Systems Science (DyDESS). Springer, 2015, vol. 8964.
Y. Zhuang, K. Yu, D. Wang, and W. Ding, “An evaluation of big
data analytics in feature selection for long-lead extreme floods
forecasting,” in Networking, Sensing, and Control (ICNSC), 2016
IEEE 13th International Conference on. IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–6.
D. Wang and W. Ding, “A hierarchical pattern learning framework for forecasting extreme weather events,” in Data Mining

[78]

[79]
[80]
[81]

[82]
[83]
[84]
[85]
[86]

[87]

[88]
[89]

[90]

[91]
[92]
[93]

[94]
[95]

[96]

[97]
[98]

(ICDM), 2015 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2015, pp.
1021–1026.
K. Yu, D. Wang, W. Ding, J. Pei, D. L. Small, S. Islam, and
X. Wu, “Tornado forecasting with multiple markov boundaries,”
in Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on
Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 2015, pp. 2237–2246.
S. J. Pan and Q. Yang, “A survey on transfer learning,” Knowledge
and Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 22, no. 10, pp.
1345–1359, 2010.
J. Kawale, M. Steinbach, and V. Kumar, “Discovering dynamic
dipoles in climate data.” in SDM. SIAM, 2011, pp. 107–118.
M. Steinbach, P.-N. Tan, V. Kumar, S. Klooster, and C. Potter,
“Discovery of climate indices using clustering,” in Proceedings
of the ninth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge
discovery and data mining. ACM, 2003, pp. 446–455.
A. A. Tsonis and P. J. Roebber, “The architecture of the climate
network,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol.
333, pp. 497–504, 2004.
J. F. Donges, Y. Zou, N. Marwan, and J. Kurths, “Complex
networks in climate dynamics,” The European Physical JournalSpecial Topics, vol. 174, no. 1, pp. 157–179, 2009.
J. Elsner, T. Jagger, and E. Fogarty, “Visibility network of united
states hurricanes,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 36, no. 16,
2009.
K. Steinhaeuser, N. V. Chawla, and A. R. Ganguly, “An exploration of climate data using complex networks,” ACM SIGKDD
Explorations Newsletter, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 25–32, 2010.
K. Steinhaeuser, N. Chawla, and A. Ganguly, “Complex networks
as a unified framework for descriptive analysis and predictive
modeling in climate science,” Statistical Analysis and Data Mining:
The ASA Data Science Journal, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 497–511, 2011.
S. Agrawal, G. Atluri, A. Karpatne, W. Haltom, S. Liess, S. Chatterjee, and V. Kumar, “Tripoles: A new class of relationships
in time series data,” in Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD
International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.
ACM, 2017, pp. 697–706.
S. Liess, S. Agrawal, S. Chatterjee, and V. Kumar, “A teleconnection between the west siberian plain and the enso region,” Journal
of Climate, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 301–315, 2017.
M. Lu, U. Lall, J. Kawale, S. Liess, and V. Kumar, “Exploring the
predictability of 30-day extreme precipitation occurrence using
a global sst–slp correlation network,” Journal of Climate, vol. 29,
no. 3, pp. 1013–1029, 2016.
S. Liess, A. Kumar, P. K. Snyder, J. Kawale, K. Steinhaeuser,
F. H. Semazzi, A. R. Ganguly, N. F. Samatova, and V. Kumar,
“Different modes of variability over the tasman sea: Implications
for regional climate,” Journal of Climate, vol. 27, no. 22, pp. 8466–
8486, 2014.
C. W. Granger, “Investigating causal relations by econometric
models and cross-spectral methods,” Econometrica: Journal of the
Econometric Society, pp. 424–438, 1969.
J. Pearl and T. Verma, “A theory of inferred causation,” in
Second Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and
Reasoning, Cambridge, MA, April 1991.
A. C. Lozano, H. Li, A. Niculescu-Mizil, Y. Liu, C. Perlich,
J. Hosking, and N. Abe, “Spatial-temporal causal modeling
for climate change attribution,” in Proceedings of the 15th ACM
SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data
mining. ACM, 2009, pp. 587–596.
I. Ebert-Uphoff and Y. Deng, “Causal discovery for climate research using graphical models,” Journal of Climate, vol. 25, no. 17,
pp. 5648–5665, 2012.
A. Hannart, J. Pearl, F. E. L. Otto, P. Naveau, and M. Ghil, “Causal
counterfactual theory for the attribution of weather and climaterelated events,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,
2016.
I. Ebert-Uphoff and Y. Deng, “Causal discovery from spatiotemporal data with applications to climate science,” in Machine
Learning and Applications (ICMLA), 2014 13th International Conference on. IEEE, 2014, pp. 606–613.
J. Pearl, “Causality: models, reasoning, and inference,” IIE Transactions, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 583–589, 2002.
S. Ravela, C. Denamiel, H. Jacoby, and J. Holak, “Quantifying
uncertainty and uncertain probabilities in hurricane induced risk
assessment and mitigation planning under a changing climate,”
in 5th International Conference on Hurricanes and Climate, G. Chania, Ed., 2015.

12

[99]
[100]

[101]

[102]
[103]

[104]

[105]

[106]

[107]

[108]

[109]

[110]

[111]

[112]
[113]
[114]
[115]

I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep learning. MIT
press, 2016.
J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei, “Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,” in Computer
Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2009. CVPR 2009. IEEE Conference
on. IEEE, 2009, pp. 248–255.
Y. Liu, E. Racah, J. Correa, A. Khosrowshahi, D. Lavers,
K. Kunkel, M. Wehner, W. Collins et al., “Application of deep
convolutional neural networks for detecting extreme weather in
climate datasets,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.01156, 2016.
E. Racah, C. Beckham, T. Maharaj, C. Pal et al., “Semi-supervised
detection of extreme weather events in large climate datasets,”
arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.02095, 2016.
X. Jia, A. Khandelwal, G. Nayak, J. Gerber, K. Carlson, P. West,
and V. Kumar, “Incremental dual-memory lstm in land cover
prediction,” in Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International
Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 2017,
pp. 867–876.
X. Jia, A. Khandelwal, G. Nayak, J. Gerber, K. Carlson, P. West,
and V. Kumar, “Predict land covers with transition modeling
and incremental learning,” in Proceedings of the 2017 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics, 2017, pp. 171–179.
X. Jia, A. Khandelwal, J. Gerber, K. Carlson, P. West, and V. Kumar, “Learning large-scale plantation mapping from imperfect
annotators,” in Big Data (Big Data), 2016 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2016, pp. 1192–1201.
T. Vandal, E. Kodra, S. Ganguly, A. Michaelis, R. Nemani, and
A. R. Ganguly, “Deepsd: Generating high resolution climate
change projections through single image super-resolution,” ACM
SIGKDD, 2017.
S. Basu, S. Ganguly, S. Mukhopadhyay, R. DiBiano, M. Karki,
and R. Nemani, “Deepsat: a learning framework for satellite
imagery,” in Proceedings of the 23rd SIGSPATIAL International
Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems. ACM,
2015, p. 37.
H. V. Gupta and G. S. Nearing, “Debates–the future of hydrological sciences: A (common) path forward? using models and
data to learn: A systems theoretic perspective on the future of
hydrological science,” Water Resources Research, vol. 50, no. 6, pp.
5351–5359, 2014.
U. Lall, “Debates–the future of hydrological sciences: A (common) path forward? one water. one world. many climes. many
souls,” Water Resources Research, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 5335–5341,
2014.
J. J. McDonnell and K. Beven, “Debates–the future of hydrological
sciences: A (common) path forward? a call to action aimed at understanding velocities, celerities and residence time distributions
of the headwater hydrograph,” Water Resources Research, vol. 50,
no. 6, pp. 5342–5350, 2014.
A. Karpatne, G. Atluri, J. Faghmous, M. Steinbach, A. Banerjee,
A. Ganguly, S. Shekhar, N. Samatova, and V. Kumar, “Theoryguided data science: A new paradigm for scientific discovery,”
IEEE TKDE, 2017.
R. Stewart and S. Ermon, “Label-free supervision of neural networks with physics and domain knowledge.” in AAAI, 2017, pp.
2576–2582.
G. Evensen, “Introduction,” in Data Assimilation. Springer, 2009,
pp. 1–4.
I. Ebert-Uphoff and Y. Deng, “Three steps to successful collaboration with data scientists,” EOS, Transactions American Geophysical
Union, 2017, (in press).
Y. Gil and et al., “Final workshop report,” Workshop on Intelligent
and Information Systems for Geosciences, 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://isgeodotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/

Anuj Karpatne Anuj Karpatne is a PhD candidate in the Department of Computer Science
and Engineering (CSE) at University of Minnesota (UMN). Karpatne works in the area of
data mining with applications in scientific problems related to the environment. Karpatne received his B.Tech-M.Tech degree in Mathematics & Computing from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi.

Imme Ebert-Uphoff Imme Ebert-Uphoff is a
Research Faculty member in the Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Colorado State University. Her research interests include causal discovery and other machine learning methods, applied to geoscience applications.
She received her Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, MD), and her M.S. and B.S. degrees in
Mathematics from the University of Karlsruhe
(Karlsruhe, Germany).

Sai Ravela Sai Ravela directs the Earth Signals
and Systems Group (ESSG) in the Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His primary
research interests are in dynamic data-driven
stochastic systems theory and machine intelligence methodology with application to Earth,
Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. Ravela received a PhD in Computer Science in 2003 from
the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Hassan Ali Babaie Hassan Ali Babaie is an
Associate Professor at the Department of Geosciences, with joint appointment in the Computer
Science Department, at Georgia State University. Babaies research interest includes geoinformatics, semantic web, representing the knowledge of structural geology, applying ontologies,
and machine learning. He received his PhD specializing in Structural Geology from Northwestern University.

Vipin Kumar Vipin Kumar is a Regents Professor and William Norris Chair in Large Scale
Computing in the Department of CSE at UMN.
Kumar’s research interests include data mining,
high-performance computing, and their applications in climate/ecosystems and biomedical domains. Kumar received his PhD in Computer
Science from University of Maryland, M.E in
Electrical Engineering from Philips International
Institute Eindhoven, and B.E in Electronics &
Communication Engineering from IIT Roorkee.

