Probabilistic Deep Learning for Drought Forecasting: Role of Internal Climate Variability

Predicting drought risk is essential for anticipating impacts on water resources, agriculture, ecosystems, and climate adaptation planning. Yet drought forecasts remain uncertain because variability can substantially alter regional precipitation and evaporative demand. Treating this variability as unstructured noise ignores the fact that internal variability has spatial, seasonal, and temporal structure and thus contains information that can be used to improve drought forecasting. We propose a deep-learning-based forecasting framework for European drought prediction and extend it with an uncertainty-aware drought bound that explicitly incorporates internal forecast variability from a large climate model ensemble. This bound represents a physically plausible lower-tail trajectory of future drought conditions and marks how severe drought could plausibly become under an unfavourable realisation of internal variability, giving adaptation planning a conservative, risk-averse reference. We compare the proposed bound with a lower bound derived from reanalysis data only and show that our proposed ensemble-informed bound is better calibrated across most regions and seasons. This is specifically true during anomalously dry conditions, when historical reanalysis alone underestimates lower-tail drought risk. Our results show that internal variability should be treated as a forecast quantity in its own right. More broadly, large ensembles provide a practical way to transfer physically plausible climate variability into machine-learning drought forecasts, yielding risk-aware bounds that are more informative for drought assessment under shifting climate conditions.

Revisiting Active Learning under (Human) Label Variation

Access to high-quality labeled data remains a limiting factor in applied supervised learning. While label variation (LV), i.e., differing labels for the same instance, is common, especially in natural language processing, annotation frameworks often still rest on the assumption of a single ground truth. This overlooks human label variation (HLV), the occurrence of plausible differences in annotations, as an informative signal. Similarly, active learning (AL), a popular approach to optimizing the use of limited annotation budgets in training ML models, often relies on at least one of several simplifying assumptions, which rarely hold in practice when acknowledging HLV. In this paper, we examine foundational assumptions about truth and label nature, highlighting the need to decompose observed LV into signal (e.g., HLV) and noise (e.g., annotation error). We survey how the AL and (H)LV communities have addressed -- or neglected -- these distinctions and propose a conceptual framework for incorporating HLV throughout the AL loop, including instance selection, annotator choice, and label representation. We further discuss the integration of large language models (LLM) as annotators. Our work aims to lay a conceptual foundation for HLV-aware active learning, better reflecting the complexities of real-world annotation.

Sources of Uncertainty in Machine Learning -- A Statisticians' View

Machine Learning and Deep Learning have achieved an impressive standard today, enabling us to answer questions that were inconceivable a few years ago. Besides these successes, it becomes clear, that beyond pure prediction, which is the primary strength of most supervised machine learning algorithms, the quantification of uncertainty is relevant and necessary as well. While first concepts and ideas in this direction have emerged in recent years, this paper adopts a conceptual perspective and examines possible sources of uncertainty. By adopting the viewpoint of a statistician, we discuss the concepts of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty, which are more commonly associated with machine learning. The paper aims to formalize the two types of uncertainty and demonstrates that sources of uncertainty are miscellaneous and can not always be decomposed into aleatoric and epistemic. Drawing parallels between statistical concepts and uncertainty in machine learning, we also demonstrate the role of data and their influence on uncertainty.