Papers › Uncertainty quantification for data-driven weather models

Uncertainty quantification for data-driven weather models

20 Mar 2024arXiv:2403.13458archive 2025-07-28

Christopher Bülte, Nina Horat, Julian Quinting, Sebastian Lerch

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based data-driven weather forecasting models have experienced rapid progress over the last years. Recent studies, with models trained on reanalysis data, achieve impressive results and demonstrate substantial improvements over state-of-the-art physics-based numerical weather prediction models across a range of variables and evaluation metrics. Beyond improved predictions, the main advantages of data-driven weather models are their substantially lower computational costs and the faster generation of forecasts, once a model has been trained. However, most efforts in data-driven weather forecasting have been limited to deterministic, point-valued predictions, making it impossible to quantify forecast uncertainties, which is crucial in research and for optimal decision making in applications. Our overarching aim is to systematically study and compare uncertainty quantification methods to generate probabilistic weather forecasts from a state-of-the-art deterministic data-driven weather model, Pangu-Weather. Specifically, we compare approaches for quantifying forecast uncertainty based on generating ensemble forecasts via perturbations to the initial conditions, with the use of statistical and machine learning methods for post-hoc uncertainty quantification. In a case study on medium-range forecasts of selected weather variables over Europe, the probabilistic forecasts obtained by using the Pangu-Weather model in concert with uncertainty quantification methods show promising results and provide improvements over ensemble forecasts from the physics-based ensemble weather model of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts for lead times of up to 5 days.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

4 samples harvested; 3 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 4 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from cbuelt/dduq. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections