Papers for

environmental data teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Spatial fuzzy clustering improved with nature inspired algorithms

naspaclust: A hybridisation of spatial fuzzy clustering with nature-inspired optimisation

Abstract: We present an overview of R package called \texttt{naspaclust}, a tool for spatial fuzzy clustering improvement by hybridising the Fuzzy Geographically Weighted Clustering (FGWC) with nature-inspired optimisation algorithms. There are seven optimisation algorithms in general, namely Artificial Bee Colony, Flower Pollination Algorithm, Gravitational Search Algorithm, Harris-Hawk Optimisation, Intelligent Firefly Algorithm, Particle Swarm Optimisation, and Teaching-Learning Based optimisation. The optimisation algorithms available do not only use the basic algorithms, but also the modified version of several parts such as randomisation terms and updating rules. Furthermore, we also provide additional options by providing more distance metrics options based on the \texttt{ rdist} package. This study showed the implementation of the \texttt{naspaclust} package in various cases, as well as comparing the performance of the algorithms in the scope of basic algorithms. The \texttt{naspaclust} package allows to improve the performance of fuzzy clustering, mainly in spatial context.

Mon 12 OctNeural and Evolutionary ComputingMachine Learning
The gist
Clustering is a way to group similar items, but it can be tricky when locations matter. The authors introduce an R software tool called naspaclust that combines spatial clustering with smart strategies inspired by nature to get better groups. They mix a specific spatial fuzzy clustering method with seven nature-inspired optimization techniques, tweaking some parts to improve results. Their package also offers different ways to measure distance, helping it work better in various spatial cases.
Open → 2610.16356v1

AI agents build competitive El Nino climate models from data

SciExam for ENSO: Can AI Agents Build Climate Models?

Abstract: Language-model agents are increasingly asked to carry out open-ended scientific research, yet their results are usually graded against a known answer, a rubric, or a language-model reviewer, none of which can tell whether a new scientific model is valid. The AI Science Exam for El Nino-Southern Oscillation (SciExam for ENSO) is a benchmark in which agents build low-order stochastic models of ENSO, the dominant mode of interannual climate variability, from real observations. Within a six-hour budget, agents process the observations, write their own diagnostics, which are then frozen, and develop a model using only these diagnostics as feedback. Hidden graders then test whether the model reproduces ENSO's statistics, recovers unobserved variables, and forecasts held-out years, and score a published model in the same way. Across twelve agent systems, six produce models that score higher than the published model, mainly through better reconstruction and forecasting. The simplified forms of the stronger models are each compatible with one of the two competing explanations of ENSO's warm-cold asymmetry, an open debate that the task never mentions. Controlled runs of the top system under varied information suggest that its scores do not come from recalling the dated observational record and that the information it receives shapes how it builds its model. SciExam for ENSO can thus evaluate agent research where no answer is known, and the results suggest that agents can already build competitive models whose structures bear on questions that scientists still debate.

Wed 7 OctArtificial IntelligenceMachine Learning
The gist
Predicting El Nino, a major climate pattern, requires building complex models from observations. The authors created a test where AI agents try to build these models themselves using only real climate data and diagnostics they generate. Some AI agents made models that were better at forecasting and matching El Nino’s behavior than a known published model. The results show AI agents can create useful climate models and reveal different explanations for El Nino’s patterns that scientists are still debating.
Open → 2610.10513v1

Arctic science questions help test AI model answers and abstentions

Arctic Questions, Missing Answers: A Dataset and Benchmark for LLM Abstention in Arctic Science

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) should abstain from scientific multiple-choice questions when no option is valid, but frequent abstention alone does not demonstrate sensitivity to answer availability. We introduce ArcticQA, a dataset of 194 questions derived from primary Arctic research, with automated checks of answer support and distractor contradiction against source evidence. We further develop ArcticAbstain, a paired benchmark comparing answer-present and answer-absent conditions, with the correct answer replaced by a distractor in the latter and an explicit abstention option in both. We evaluate eight models from the Gemini, Claude, and ChatGPT families at high reasoning effort, with three trials per condition, yielding 9,312 recorded responses. Answer-present abstention rates range from 0.0% to 63.0%, whereas replacing the correct answer increases abstention by 5.05 percentage points on average. These findings highlight substantial baseline differences and the need to evaluate abstention frequency and responsiveness jointly. The dataset and benchmark are available at https://github.com/BenWilcox8/arctic-qa.

Wed 7 OctComputation and LanguageArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Sometimes big language AIs are asked scientific questions where none of the answer choices are right, but they don’t always say “I don’t know.” The authors made a special set of 194 real questions about Arctic science to see if these AIs would choose to abstain when answers are wrong or missing. They tested 8 AI models and found big differences in when and how often the models chose not to answer. This helps understand how to measure if AI really knows when it should say it can’t answer.
Open → 2610.09446v1

GeoNatureAgent evaluates AI tools on environmental map tasks

GeoNatureAgent (GNA): A Framework and Benchmark for Pre-Production Evaluation of Tool-Using Agents on Geospatial and Environmental Tasks

Abstract: Before tool-using LLM agents are deployed in environmental and geospatial workflows, teams need evidence that an agent reliably selects the right operations against real APIs. We introduce GeoNatureAgent (GNA), a framework for pre-production evaluation of tool-using agents: a fixed sixteen-tool geospatial interface published as a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server, so the agent under test is the only variable, scored against an identical tool layer, task suite, and deterministic scorer. Its flagship instance is a 103-task benchmark (a 93-task main suite across 18 categories plus a ten-task comparison expansion) evaluated against an open, self-hostable geospatial API serving three environmental indicators across Spain and Portugal. We evaluate nine LLMs under three temperature-1.0 seeds, reporting capability and per-case cost as orthogonal axes. (1) Claude Sonnet 4 achieves the highest capability (61.7% +/- 0.7% on all 103 tasks; 60.8% on the main suite), followed closely by DeepSeek V3.2 (57.9%), while no other model exceeds 53%; (2) the cost-accuracy Pareto frontier is mostly open-weight, with DeepSeek V3.2 offering 93% of Claude's capability at 11.3x lower list-price cost; (3) under strict all-checks scoring the best model sits 24-36 points below the 85-97% reported on general-purpose GIS benchmarks, whereas per-check partial credit for the top four models (86-90%) is comparable, so much of that gap reflects scoring strictness rather than task difficulty alone. The MCP server, evaluation harness, benchmark, and API are publicly available; swapping the tool executors and task suite instantiates an equivalent benchmark for any geospatial domain.

Tue 6 OctArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Environmental teams want to trust AI agents to pick the right tools for mapping and analysis tasks using real geographic data. The authors created GeoNatureAgent, a system that tests different AI models on a fixed set of 16 geographic tools and 103 tasks related to environmental info in Spain and Portugal. They found some models perform better but none match general GIS benchmarks when strict scoring is used. Their framework is open source and can be adapted for other geographic areas or tools. This helps teams know how well an AI agent might work before using it in real projects.
Open → 2610.09112v1

Structure aware model improves reliability of multivariate forecasts

Structure-Aware Graph Abstention for Reliable Selective Forecasting

Abstract: Selective forecasting abstains on high-risk test windows under a retained-coverage budget. Existing gates such as TEM (Brusokas et al., 2025) score each forecast as a whole; for multivariate outputs, trajectories can look plausible while violating dependencies among variables. We treat instance-level plausibility and relational consistency as distinct reliability axes and operationalize the latter via a learned sparse graph and a Dirichlet-style structural energy E_struct, trained with error-weighted graph regularization and score-error alignment. On seven long-horizon benchmarks and four backbones, structural gating often reduces selective MSE versus TEM at matched coverage, with the largest gains where cross-variable structure appears more informative in our benchmarks; gains are not universal, indicating a complementary abstention signal. Table 1 is a Protocol A ranking diagnostic (seed 2024); three-seed deployable Protocol B on an aligned subset is in Table 3 (full validation-to-test grids: Appendix A).

Tue 6 OctMachine Learning
The gist
Forecasting future events can be tricky, especially when predicting several things at once that depend on each other. The authors found that existing methods sometimes give confident predictions that look okay overall but ignore important connections between variables. They developed a new way to decide when the model should say "I’m not sure" by checking both individual prediction quality and how well predictions fit together using a learned graph. This approach makes forecasting more reliable, especially when those variable relationships matter a lot.
Open → 2610.08322v1

Multi-agent systems improve complex scientific data analysis accuracy

ST-Bench: A Spatial-Temporal Benchmark for Multi-Agent System Generation on Scientific Research Tasks

Abstract: The rapid progress of LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) has shown that they largely outperform single agents on coding, math, and QA tasks, where executable tests provide a binary success signal. Whether this advantage transfers to real scientific data analysis remains untested. We introduce ST-Bench, a benchmark designed to answer two questions: whether MAS outperform single agents on complex scientific data analysis tasks, and if so, by how much and at what additional cost. ST-Bench contains 100 data science tasks adapted from published Earth science studies across hydrology, agriculture, and wetland methane research, expanded into 2,067 queries grounded in additional published studies and validated by domain experts. Using ST-Bench, we evaluate five recent MAS generation methods under two training protocols, against single-agent baselines on the same GPT-5 backbone. Nine of the ten MAS configurations exceed the cheapest single-agent baseline, with the strongest reaching nearly three times its composite score. This gain is primarily attributable to coverage: trained workflows produce realistic numerical metrics on a larger fraction of queries, while the quality of those metrics, conditional on producing realistic output, is comparable to that of the single-agent baseline. The strongest configuration requires approximately four times the single-agent inference time, whereas a more economical workflow captures the majority of the benefit at less than twice the cost. MAS specialization confers measurable benefit on scientific data analysis, but the benefit is conditional rather than universal.

Tue 6 OctArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Analyzing complex scientific data is hard, and using multiple AI agents working together might help. The authors created a new test called ST-Bench with many Earth science tasks to see if teams of AI agents do better than solo agents. They found that most multi-agent setups performed better, mainly because they covered more tasks, although they took more computing time. This shows that multiple agents can be more helpful in scientific data work, but the improvement depends on the situation.
Open → 2610.07763v1

Distributed method merges fragmented data to find physical parameters accurately

Recovering Physical Parameters from Fragmented Observations via Exact Distributed Spline Merging

Abstract: Scientific measurements are frequently distributed across locations, time periods, and institutions. Combining such fragments into a continuous, differentiable field enables recovering governing physical parameters from its derivatives. This paper makes two contributions toward that goal. First, the established additive structure of fixed-basis ridge-regression statistics is applied to tensor-product spline fields: each data holder computes a local Gram matrix and moment vector, and the merged solution is mathematically identical to centralized fitting, with no raw data shared and no iterative synchronization. This property is specific to the fixed-feature squared-error setting; the present derivation does not establish an analogous guarantee for general jointly trained multilayer networks. Second, a complete pipeline connects distributed observations to physical parameter inference through field reconstruction, derivative extraction, and linear regression. The diffusion coefficient is recovered to 0.11% error and wave speed to 0.12% error; in both cases, distributed merging introduces zero degradation relative to centralized fitting. Application to 41 years of NOAA sea-surface temperature data confirms the result on real spatiotemporal observations.

Tue 15 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
Many scientific measurements come from different places and times, making it hard to combine them smoothly. The authors developed a way for separate holders of data to work together without sharing raw data, yet still get the same result as if all data were combined centrally. Their method reconstructs smooth physical fields and extracts key parameters like how heat diffuses or how waves travel with very high accuracy. They tested this with decades of sea temperature data, showing it works well on real-world messy data.
Open → 2609.16579v1