Operational land surface forecasting systems built on Mamba-family Structured State Space Models absorb non-stationary confounding events (unrecorded irrigation booms, dam-operation shifts, sensor recalibrations) into their state-transition matrices, silently biasing NDVI, LST, and crop phenology predictions long after the physical cause ends. This paper introduces SSU-LSF (State-Space Unlearning for Land Surface Forecasting), the first machine-unlearning framework purpose-built for geoscientific Mamba-based SSMs. We develop EKFac influence functions specialized to the Mamba state matrices via a closed-form matrix-exponential gradient, use spectral-radius-weighted elbow thresholding to localize a temporal confounding footprint Φ, and apply Hessian-free projected gradient ascent within a KL-divergence trust region augmented by spatial total-variation (TV) regularization. Proposition 1 establishes that residual confounding is bounded by O((1−ρ(Aˉ)Tc)/((1−ρ(Aˉ))μ)), which grows with the window length Tc. Across three heterogeneous benchmarks and eleven baselines, SSU-LSF achieves confounding reduction rates of 0.773 (CropHarvest), 0.821 (NDVI-LST), and 0.859 (ERA5), with worst-case clean-domain RMSE degradation of 4.2% on ERA5, converging in 3--5 epochs at 8.4× lower GPU-cost per unlearning request than full retraining. Code: https://github.com/Anidipta/SSU-LSF
Figures & tables
Figure 1: SSU-LSF pipeline. (a) A confounding event biases (Aˉ,Bˉ,C) and forward-propagates spurious NDVI elevation beyond te . (b) EKFac influence scores φt ; elbow threshold γ isolates footprint Φ (red). (c) RMSE convergence: SSU-LSF (blue) reaches oracle-level RMSE in five epochs while CM (red) stays elevated.
NDVI-LST Fusion
ERA5 Patchified
CropHarvest
Method
RMSE ↓
CRR ↑
TCI ↑
SKT-R ↓
MIA ↓
ACC ↑
Sp-R ↓
SCS ↓
F1 ↑
GPU-h/req ↓
CM
0.0681
0.000
0.601
2.97
0.84
0.612
0.0543
0.083
0.697
–
OR †
0.0398
1.000
0.891
1.19
0.51
0.903
0.0371
0.079
0.871
47.3
SISA [ 13 ]
0.0418
0.612
0.833
1.26
0.52
0.871
0.0395
0.088
0.834
58.4
GR [ 11 ]
0.0461
0.741
0.774
1.47
0.57
0.843
0.0428
0.127
0.799
2.3
SR [ 11 ]
0.0439
0.778
0.798
1.38
0.55
0.858
0.0411
0.102
0.817
7.9
Table 1: Per-benchmark results. † : upper bound. CRR for ERA5 and CropHarvest and Δ RMSE for all benchmarks are in Table 5 . GPU-h is the ERA5 cost per unlearning request including EKFac re-estimation (per-benchmark costs in Table 9 ).
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Module
Configuration
Key parameters
Params (M)
Patch embedding
Conv2d(5,256,4,stride 4)
4×4 , mean pool
1.0
Mamba encoder
6× block
d=256 , E=2 , N=16 , drop 0.1
39.8
Output norm
LayerNorm(256)
extract h[:,−1,:]
0.0
Forecast head
MLP 256-512-512-60, GELU
τ=6 , dout=5
6.5
Total
47.3
Appendix
Table 2: MambaForecaster module specifications.
Component
NDVI-LST
ERA5
CropHarvest
Method
Forecast head only Lhead
4.1
4.1
4.1
Spectral norm product
Full encoder Lenc
17.8
18.3
16.9
Randomized smoothing
Appendix
Table 3: Empirical Lipschitz constants (99th percentile over test set) via randomized smoothing ( σsmooth=0.01 ).
Benchmark
MMD (ref. model)
μ^ref
p -value
NDVI-LST
0.161±0.013
0.160
<0.001
ERA5
0.214±0.016
0.212
<0.001
CropHarvest
0.109±0.010
0.108
<0.001
Appendix
Table 4: MMD and RKHS separation μ^ estimated on clean reference model (not θ∗ ). All three benchmarks show significant separation ( p<0.001 , permutation test with 10,000 permutations).
NDVI-LST
ERA5
CropHarvest
CRR ↑
0.821±0.010
0.859±0.009
0.773±0.012
Δ RMSE% ↓
3.5±0.2
4.2±0.3
2.1±0.2
Appendix
Table 5: Per-benchmark SSU-LSF CRR and clean-domain Δ RMSE% (vs. OR), mean ± std over 3 seeds.
Method
SCS ↓
FSS ( n=8 ) ↑
EWC-UL
0.134
0.571
GR
0.127
0.588
ARCANE
0.109
0.619
FAST
0.099
0.638
SR
0.102
0.633
ForgetFS
0.096
0.649
Appendix
Table 6: SCS vs. FSS ( n=8 neighbourhood) across all methods on CropHarvest. Pearson r=−0.91 , Spearman ρs=−0.93 ( p<0.001 ). The FSS improvement from GR to SSU-LSF is 0.115 .
NDVI-LST
CropHarvest
Method
CRR ↑
Δ RMSE% ↓
SCS ↓
CRR ↑
Δ RMSE% ↓
SCS ↓
ForgetFS
0.814
4.3
0.096
0.772
3.8
0.093
ForgetFS+TV
0.815
4.4
0.084
0.773
3.9
0.083
MULL
0.817
3.8
0.089
0.779
3.0
0.086
MULL+TV
0.818
3.9
0.082
0.780
3.1
0.082
SSU-LSF
0.821
3.5
0.081
0.773
2.1
0.081
Appendix
Table 7: Adding SSU-LSF’s TV term to ForgetFS and MULL (suffix +TV). This isolates the contribution of the TV term from the influence footprint. SSU-LSF outperforms both +TV variants on CRR on NDVI-LST and on Δ RMSE on both benchmarks; +TV closes most of the SCS gap, confirming TV is the decisive factor for SCS. Δ RMSE% is vs. OR.
Tc=6 mo
Tc=12 mo
Tc=24 mo
Tc=36 mo
SSU-LSF CRR
0.961±0.008
0.903±0.011
0.821±0.010
0.712±0.015
Fitted 1−kTc
0.953
0.906
0.812
0.718
Oracle Retrain CRR
0.993±0.003
0.991±0.003
0.987±0.004
0.985±0.004
GR CRR
0.891±0.018
0.831±0.021
0.741±0.018
0.628±0.024
Window-estimate error ±3 mo
0.944±0.012
0.887±0.014
0.803±0.013
0.691±0.018
Appendix
Table 8: CRR vs. confounding window length Tc on NDVI-LST (mean ± std, 3 seeds). Fitted curve: 1−kTc ( k=0.0078 , least squares), the ρeff→1 limit of Proposition 1’s first term. R2=0.995 with one fitted constant over four points (3 residual d.o.f.); this supports the monotone trend, not the exact functional form.
NDVI-LST Fusion
ERA5 Patchified
Method
EKFac
FP
Ascent
Total
EKFac
FP
Ascent
Total
OR †
–
–
–
18.4
–
–
–
47.3
SISA
–
–
–
22.1
–
–
–
58.4
GR
–
–
0.9
0.9
–
–
2.3
2.3
ForgetFS
–
–
2.9
2.9
–
–
8.1
8.1
MULL
–
–
2.1
2.1
–
–
6.4
6.4
Appendix
Table 9: Per-unlearning-request GPU-hour breakdown. EKFac is re-estimated for each new confounding event identified. GPU-h/req is the operationally relevant metric: if three events per year are identified, annual cost is 3×5.6=16.8 GPU-h for SSU-LSF vs. 3×47.3=141.9 GPU-h for OR on ERA5. The OR † /SISA/PNN-UL figures are per-retrain (no stage breakdown). SISA includes shard-retrain overhead and uses a pre-structured computational model (shards established before training) incomparable on GPU-h/req; its figure is included for completeness but excluded from the speedup comparison. EKFac: Hessian estimation. FP: footprint.Per-request speedup: 47.3/5.6=8.4× on ERA5.
Block
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
0.79
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.87
0.88
Std
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
Min
0.74
0.77
0.79
0.81
0.82
0.83
Max
0.83
0.86
0.88
0.90
0.91
0.91
Appendix
Table 10: Per-block ρ(Aˉ) statistics across 10 seeds on ERA5. At ρmax=0.91 , the bound’s unlearning cost term LencδKL/(1−ρmax)=18.3×0.05/0.09≈10.2 K is vacuous relative to oracle RMSE 1.19 K. The bound is informative only qualitatively.
Configuration
CRR ↑
Δ RMSE% ↓
MIA ↓
SCS ↓
Full SSU-LSF
0.821(0.010)
3.5(0.2)
0.53(0.01)
0.081(0.003)
w/o Φ only
0.694(0.012)
8.2(0.4)
0.59(0.02)
0.092(0.003)
w/o KL only
0.831(0.009)
21.7(1.1)
0.52(0.01)
0.088(0.004)
w/o TV only
0.819(0.010)
3.6(0.2)
0.53(0.01)
0.131(0.006)
w/ GCS (not EKFac)
0.751(0.015)
5.1(0.3)
0.56(0.02)
0.094(0.004)
w/ Diag. Fisher
0.779(0.013)
4.6(0.3)
0.55(0.01)
0.091(0.003)
Appendix
Table 11: Full ablation (NDVI-LST). Top block: single-component removals. Middle block: 2×2 interaction ablations. Bottom block: sample-efficiency for clean rehearsal budget ∣Dclean∣ . All results: mean ± std, 3 seeds. Δ RMSE% is vs. OR.
Machine unlearning removes the influence of selected data or concepts from trained models while preserving useful behavior and avoiding full retraining.
Leaf Area Index (LAI) is a fundamental biophysical variable governing land-atmosphere interactions; however, LAI forecasting at high spatial resolution remains an unsolved challenge. While recent machine learning approaches have demonstrated LAI estimation at point or regional scales, none provides a gridded, meteorology-driven prognostic forecast suitable for subseasonal land surface and climate modeling applications. Here we present a sequence-to-sequence Convolutional LSTM (ConvLSTM) framework that generates daily 1-km LAI forecasts up to 30 days ahead, driven by historical LAI sequences and daily meteorological forcing including temperature and precipitation. Trained and evaluated over the South-Central United States -- a region of strong climate gradients and diverse vegetation -- the model achieves a domain-averaged RMSE of 0.36 at a 30-day lead time, more than a third lower than the persistence baseline. Forecast skill remains robust across seasons, geographic distributions, and plant functional types, including forests, grasslands, shrublands, and croplands. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of skillful LAI forecasting at a 30-day horizon at 1-km resolution.
Zhixing Ruan, Lixin Lu
Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
State-space model (SSM) for time-series forecasting have demonstrated strong empirical performance on benchmark datasets, yet their robustness under adversarial perturbations is poorly understood. We address this gap through a control-theoretic lens, focusing on the recently proposed Spacetime SSM forecaster. We first establish that the decoder-only Spacetime architecture can represent the optimal Kalman predictor when the underlying data-generating process is autoregressive - a property no other SSM possesses. Building on this, we formulate robust forecaster design as a Stackelberg game against worst-case stealthy adversaries constrained by a detection budget, and solve it via adversarial training. We derive closed-form bounds on adversarial forecasting error that expose how open-loop instability, closed-loop instability, and decoder state dimension each amplify vulnerability - offering actionable principles towards robust forecaster design. Finally, we show that even adversaries with no access to the forecaster can nonetheless construct effective attacks by exploiting the model's locally linear input-output behavior, bypassing gradient computations entirely. Experiments on the Monash benchmark datasets highlight that model-free attacks, without any gradient computation, can cause at least 33% more error than projected gradient descent with a small step size.
Sribalaji C. Anand, George J. Pappas
Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, United States · KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Time series forecasting requires extrapolating the dynamics of an observed process beyond the last available measurement. Yet recurrent forecasting models typically treat observations as inputs that directly control their latent dynamics. It leads to a regime change when these observations become unavailable at prediction time. Following a state-estimation perspective, we introduce Observer State-Space Models (OSSMs), a class of recurrent models that interprets the observed input time series as measurements of an underlying autonomous dynamical system. OSSMs explicitly separate latent-state propagation from measurement assimilation: a single transition governs the dynamics across both context and forecasting intervals, while available observations correct the estimated state through an observer. This formulation naturally exposes classical control-theoretic properties, including observability and convergence of the state estimation error. We further show that conventional and recent SSMs can be recovered as particular instances of our OSSM framework, thereby providing a unified interpretation of their recurrent dynamics and revealing modeling inconsistencies. We perform experiments across several benchmarks showing that OSSM achieves substantial improvements while maintaining the same parameter count and training setup as the corresponding SSM baseline. These results support a simple principle for recurrent forecasting: observations should correct the estimated latent state, rather than control the dynamics used to propagate it.