Skill of Medium-Range Forecast Models Using the Same Initial Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the Different Models, Same Initial Conditions (DIMOSIC) project, forecasts from different global medium-range forecast models have been created based on the same initial conditions. The dataset consists of 10-day deterministic forecasts from seven models and includes 122 forecast dates spanning one calendar year. All forecasts are initialized from the same ECMWF operational analyses to minimize the differences due to initialization. The models are run at or near their respective operational resolutions to explore similarities and differences between operational global forecast models. The main aims of this study are 1) to evaluate the forecast skill and how it depends on model formulation, 2) to assess systematic differences and errors at short lead times, 3) to compare multimodel ensemble spread to model uncertainty schemes, and 4) to identify models that generate similar solutions. Our results show that all models in this study are capable of producing high-quality forecasts given a high-quality analysis. But at the same time, we find a large variety in model biases, both in terms of temperature errors and precipitation. We are able to identify models whose forecasts are more similar to each other than they are to those of other systems, due to the use of similar model physics packages. However, in terms of multimodel ensemble spread, our results also demonstrate that forecast sensitivities to different model formulations still are substantial. We therefore believe that the diversity in model design that stems from parallel development efforts at global modeling centers around the world remains valuable for future progress in the numerical weather prediction community.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".