Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

This study investigates the robustness of machine learning versus deep learning models in predicting corn yields under extreme drought conditions where training data distributions differ significantly from test scenarios. The research highlights that while standard modifications like sample weighting effectively improve non-deep learning approaches, a specific deep learning model (VITA) shows limited adaptability to such distributional shifts despite its general superiority on historical data. These findings are critical for refining AI forecasting reliability in climate resilience applications where out-of-distribution events challenge current predictive limits.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Evaluating and improving crop-yield forecasting methods during extreme drought

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2608.17971v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The impact of climate variability on food production has led to the creation of various forecasting models that uses machine learning (ML), numerical weather predictors (NWP) or a hybrid of ML-NWP models to identify structural and physical relationships between meteorological drivers and crop growth, in order to predict crop yield. Droughts, for example the 2012 Midwestern US (Corn Belt) drought, are extreme events that affect crop production and test the limits of these forecasting models. Using 16 meteorological drivers as predictors, we compare ML (non-deep learning) and deep learning forecasting models to predict the county-level corn yield for the extreme drought year, 2012. This forecasting problem is characterized by a dissimilarity between the feature distributions of the training and test data, where the meteorological conditions of the extreme drought year fall outside the range of historically observed values. Additionally, the dataset consists of spatial and temporal irregularities where counties with missing yields introduce spatial sparsity and the use of only a subset of daily values per year introduce temporal sparsity. To overcome this, we use sample weighting and feature selection as modifications to improve our forecasting models. These modifications lead to an improvement for ML models; however, the deep learning model VITA shows little to no improvement. While VITA outperforms the ML models with or without modifications, our current study sheds light on the effect of dissimilarity between train and test feature distributions on forecasting models, compares deep learning versus non-deep learning models, and introduces modifications that are effective for non-deep learning models.

Abstract:The impact of climate variability on food production has led to the creation of various forecasting models that uses machine learning (ML), numerical weather predictors (NWP) or a hybrid of ML-NWP models to identify structural and physical relationships between meteorological drivers and crop growth, in order to predict crop yield. Droughts, for example the 2012 Midwestern US (Corn Belt) drought, are extreme events that affect crop production and test the limits of these forecasting models. Using 16 meteorological drivers as predictors, we compare ML (non-deep learning) and deep learning forecasting models to predict the county-level corn yield for the extreme drought year, 2012. This forecasting problem is characterized by a dissimilarity between the feature distributions of the training and test data, where the meteorological conditions of the extreme drought year fall outside the range of historically observed values. Additionally, the dataset consists of spatial and temporal irregularities where counties with missing yields introduce spatial sparsity and the use of only a subset of daily values per year introduce temporal sparsity. To overcome this, we use sample weighting and feature selection as modifications to improve our forecasting models. These modifications lead to an improvement for ML models; however, the deep learning model VITA shows little to no improvement. While VITA outperforms the ML models with or without modifications, our current study sheds light on the effect of dissimilarity between train and test feature distributions on forecasting models, compares deep learning versus non-deep learning models, and introduces modifications that are effective for non-deep learning models.

Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2608.17971 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2608.17971v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.17971 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 347 words

Related coverage