An Empirical Model for Skillful Rogue Wave Forecasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of the leading goals of rogue wave research is to develop a robust rogue wave warning system to mitigate the danger they pose. One such system has been developed by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), called the freak wave warning system (FWWS), based on nonlinear wave effects. The FWWS predicts maximum expected wave envelope height as a risk parameter for forecasts. Recently, a data-driven alternative has been proposed by Häfner et al., which was distilled from a neural network using wave buoy observations. However, it has yet to be evaluated by a spectral wave model for application to operational wave forecasting. The data-driven, learned model emphasizes bandwidth-controlled linear superposition as the predominant mechanism in crest-to-trough rogue wave generation, while nonlinear effects are a secondary term. The present work evaluates the performance of the empirical model using output from an ECMWF global wave hindcast. We find that the prediction models based on bandwidth effects have the highest log likelihood scores, with the empirical model outperforming all other tested models. In contrast, the expected maximum envelope wave height from the FWWS does not predict the occurrence of rogue waves. These results indicate that the empirical model with wave model input is a skillful predictor and should be considered for operational implementation to improve rogue wave forecasting. Significance Statement Rogue waves are unexpectedly large and unpredictable waves. Encounters with rogue waves can result in damage to marine vessels and offshore infrastructures. Research is devoted to developing systems to predict the risk of rogue wave events. A novel predictive model has been shown to perform well in predicting rogue wave occurrences based on wave buoy observations. This model is a symbolic expression distilled from an artificial neural network that incorporates known rogue wave dynamics and that can be evaluated alongside traditional risk estimates with minor adjustments to operational forecasting systems. This study evaluates the newly proposed empirical model in a forecasting setting. Our work demonstrates the efficacy of the empirical model for operational forecasting purposes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".