Impact‐Based Skill Evaluation of Seasonal Precipitation Forecasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We introduce an impact‐based framework to evaluate seasonal forecast model skill in capturing extreme weather and climate events over regions prone to natural disasters such as floods and wildfires. Forecasting hydroclimatic extremes holds significant importance in an era of increasing hazards such as wildfires, floods, and droughts. We evaluate the performance of five Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) seasonal forecast models (CMCC, DWD, ECCC, UK‐Met, and Météo‐France) in predicting extreme precipitation events from 1993 to 2016 using 14 indices reflecting timing and intensity (using absolute and locally defined thresholds) of precipitation at a seasonal timescale. Performance metrics, including Percent Bias, Kendall Tau Rank Correlation Score, and models' discrimination capacity, are used for skill evaluation. Our findings indicate that the performance of models varies markedly across regions and seasons. While models generally show good skill in the tropical regions, their skill in extra‐tropical regions is markedly lower. Elevated precipitation thresholds (i.e., higher intensity indices) correlate with heightened model biases, indicating deficiencies in modeling severe precipitation events. Our analysis using an impact‐based framework highlights the superior predictive capabilities of the UK‐Met and Météo‐France models in capturing the underlying processes that drive precipitation events, or lack thereof, across many regions and seasons. Other models exhibit strong performance in specific regions and/or seasons, but not globally. These results advance our understanding of an impact‐based framework in capturing a broad spectrum of extreme weather and climatic events, and inform strategic amalgamation of diverse models across different regions and seasons, thereby offering valuable insights for disaster management and risk analysis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".