Cause-effect discovery in hydrometeorological systems: evaluation of causal discovery methods.
Saved in:
| Title: | Cause-effect discovery in hydrometeorological systems: evaluation of causal discovery methods. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Yadav, Vivek Kumar1,2 (AUTHOR) viveky@iisc.ac.in, Peel, Murray C.1 (AUTHOR), Fowler, Keirnan1 (AUTHOR), Ryu, Dongryeol1 (AUTHOR), Vishwakarma, Bramha Dutt2,3 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Hydrology & Earth System Sciences. 2026, Vol. 30 Issue 11, p3455-3496. 42p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Causal inference, *Hydrometeorology, *Climatic zones, *Forecasting, *Machine learning |
| Abstract: | Identifying the driver(s) of a process or phenomenon is central to understanding and predicting its future state. In complex hydrometeorological systems, a process can have multiple drivers dynamically coupled to the system across timescales. Thus, a robust method to identify drivers is imperative. In hydrological sciences, methods like multivariate regression and, more recently, Big Data machine-learning approaches rely on finding a co-relation between variables, rather than identifying cause-effect relations. This study evaluates cause-effect discovery (Causal Discovery or CD) algorithms in hydrometeorological systems. Although earlier studies have made important contributions to exploring CD methods, they have primarily focused on bivariate methods in simple synthetic environments. Specifically, we evaluate the following four theoretically distinct multivariate CD algorithms, (i) TCDF, (ii) VARLiNGAM, (iii) PCMCI+, and (iv) DYNOTEARS. We evaluate these algorithms within a large, complex simulated environment of the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) where the drivers, reference truth, are known perfectly. We evaluate the drivers identified by CD methods against this reference truth and also contrast its results with the widely used method of co-relation identification, Pearson's Correlation Coefficient (PCC). The results show that CD methods identify fewer false drivers compared to PCC, across a range of Köppen-Geiger climate types. For example, PCC failed to distinguish true drivers from instantaneous and lagged cross-correlations, typically present in hydrometeorological systems. Whereas, CD methods eliminate a higher number of false instantaneous and lagged drivers. Thus, though PCC identifies the highest number of true drivers, it suffers from high false drivers. Overall, CD methods perform similar to or better than PCC, while PCMCI+ and DYNOTEARS performed the best. Further, we test whether time-series prediction models perform better when predictors are limited to those identified as causal by CD methods. Evaluation of surface soil moisture predictions during drought shows that CD-based models outperform PCC-based models and are more parsimonious. Thus, we demonstrate the effectiveness of using causal discovery to eliminate spurious relations and obtain a robust set of drivers for prediction and process understanding across different climate conditions. This study overviews, demonstrates and tests efficacy of CD methods in studying cause-effect relations in hydrometeorological systems. By exposing their capabilities and differences in a simulated environment, we hope to encourage their use in the real world and move beyond co-relation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Database: | Energy & Power Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Identifying the driver(s) of a process or phenomenon is central to understanding and predicting its future state. In complex hydrometeorological systems, a process can have multiple drivers dynamically coupled to the system across timescales. Thus, a robust method to identify drivers is imperative. In hydrological sciences, methods like multivariate regression and, more recently, Big Data machine-learning approaches rely on finding a co-relation between variables, rather than identifying cause-effect relations. This study evaluates cause-effect discovery (Causal Discovery or CD) algorithms in hydrometeorological systems. Although earlier studies have made important contributions to exploring CD methods, they have primarily focused on bivariate methods in simple synthetic environments. Specifically, we evaluate the following four theoretically distinct multivariate CD algorithms, (i) TCDF, (ii) VARLiNGAM, (iii) PCMCI+, and (iv) DYNOTEARS. We evaluate these algorithms within a large, complex simulated environment of the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) where the drivers, reference truth, are known perfectly. We evaluate the drivers identified by CD methods against this reference truth and also contrast its results with the widely used method of co-relation identification, Pearson's Correlation Coefficient (PCC). The results show that CD methods identify fewer false drivers compared to PCC, across a range of Köppen-Geiger climate types. For example, PCC failed to distinguish true drivers from instantaneous and lagged cross-correlations, typically present in hydrometeorological systems. Whereas, CD methods eliminate a higher number of false instantaneous and lagged drivers. Thus, though PCC identifies the highest number of true drivers, it suffers from high false drivers. Overall, CD methods perform similar to or better than PCC, while PCMCI+ and DYNOTEARS performed the best. Further, we test whether time-series prediction models perform better when predictors are limited to those identified as causal by CD methods. Evaluation of surface soil moisture predictions during drought shows that CD-based models outperform PCC-based models and are more parsimonious. Thus, we demonstrate the effectiveness of using causal discovery to eliminate spurious relations and obtain a robust set of drivers for prediction and process understanding across different climate conditions. This study overviews, demonstrates and tests efficacy of CD methods in studying cause-effect relations in hydrometeorological systems. By exposing their capabilities and differences in a simulated environment, we hope to encourage their use in the real world and move beyond co-relation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10275606 |
| DOI: | 10.5194/hess-30-3455-2026 |
