Articlenpj natural hazards2026
Evaluating the skill of AI and physics-based models for February 2020 North Atlantic storm hazards.
Article in npj natural hazards, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The emergence of data-driven weather forecast models provides great promise for producing faster, computationally cheaper weather forecasts, compared to physics-based numerical models. However, while the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models has been evaluated primarily for average conditions and single extreme weather events, less is known about their ability to capture sequences of extreme events - periods that are usually accompanied by multiple natural hazards. The February 2020 storm series provides a prime example to evaluate the performance of AI models for predicting multiple storm hazards. This event was associated with severe surface impacts including intense surface wind speeds and heavy precipitation, amplified regionally due to the close succession of three extratropical storms. In this study, we compare the performance of data-driven models to physics-based models in forecasting the February 2020 storm series over the United Kingdom. Our results show that, for these case studies, AI models tend to outperform the numerical model in predicting mean sea level pressure (MSLP) on weekly timescales, and, to a lesser extent, surface winds. Nevertheless, certain ensemble members within the physics-based forecast system can perform as well as, or occasionally outperform, the AI models. Moreover, weaker error correlations between atmospheric variables suggest that AI models may overlook physical constraints. This analysis helps to identify gaps and limitations in the ability of data-driven models to be used for multi-hazard warnings, and emphasizes the need to integrate such models with physics-based approaches for reliable impact forecasting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.