Verification of high‐speed solar wind stream forecasts using operational solar wind models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High‐speed solar wind streams emanating from coronal holes are frequently impinging on the Earth's magnetosphere causing recurrent, medium‐level geomagnetic storm activity. Modeling high‐speed solar wind streams is thus an essential element of successful space weather forecasting. Here we evaluate high‐speed stream forecasts made by the empirical solar wind forecast (ESWF) and the semiempirical Wang‐Sheeley‐Arge (WSA) model based on the in situ plasma measurements from the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft for the years 2011 to 2014. While the ESWF makes use of an empirical relation between the coronal hole area observed in Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO)/Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) images and solar wind properties at the near‐Earth environment, the WSA model establishes a link between properties of the open magnetic field lines extending from the photosphere to the corona and the background solar wind conditions. We found that both solar wind models are capable of predicting the large‐scale features of the observed solar wind speed (root‐mean‐square error, RMSE ≈100 km/s) but tend to either overestimate (ESWF) or underestimate (WSA) the number of high‐speed solar wind streams (threat score, TS ≈ 0.37). The predicted high‐speed streams show typical uncertainties in the arrival time of about 1 day and uncertainties in the speed of about 100 km/s. General advantages and disadvantages of the investigated solar wind models are diagnosed and outlined.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it