Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

This research demonstrates that standard statistical evaluations of weather models are insufficient for practical applications, as performance metrics at the forecast level do not reliably predict success in downstream decision-making tasks. By introducing a "decision calibration" framework, the study reveals that Machine Learning and classical numerical models can exhibit inverted rankings depending on the specific decision context, challenging conventional model selection methods. The findings underscore the critical need to evaluate probabilistic forecasts through the lens of their actual utility in driving actions rather than just their statistical accuracy.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Forecast Skill Is Not Decision Skill: Evidence from Weather-Dependent Decision Tasks

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2512.14779v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Standard weather forecast evaluations focus on the forecaster's perspective and on a statistical assessment comparing forecasts and observations. In practice, however, forecasts are used to make decisions, so it seems natural to take the decision-maker's perspective and quantify the value of a forecast by its ability to improve decision-making. Decision calibration provides a novel framework for evaluating probabilistic forecast performance at the decision level rather than the forecast level. We evaluate decision calibration to compare a Machine Learning and a classical numerical weather prediction model on various weather-dependent decision tasks, though the framework is applicable to any set of forecast models. We find that model performance at the forecast level does not reliably translate to performance in downstream decision-making: some performance differences only become apparent at the decision level, and even among seemingly similar decision tasks, model rankings can change. Our results confirm that typical forecast evaluations are insufficient for selecting the optimal forecast model for a specific decision task.

Abstract:Standard weather forecast evaluations focus on the forecaster's perspective and on a statistical assessment comparing forecasts and observations. In practice, however, forecasts are used to make decisions, so it seems natural to take the decision-maker's perspective and quantify the value of a forecast by its ability to improve decision-making. Decision calibration provides a novel framework for evaluating probabilistic forecast performance at the decision level rather than the forecast level. We evaluate decision calibration to compare a Machine Learning and a classical numerical weather prediction model on various weather-dependent decision tasks, though the framework is applicable to any set of forecast models. We find that model performance at the forecast level does not reliably translate to performance in downstream decision-making: some performance differences only become apparent at the decision level, and even among seemingly similar decision tasks, model rankings can change. Our results confirm that typical forecast evaluations are insufficient for selecting the optimal forecast model for a specific decision task.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Applications (stat.AP)

arXiv:2512.14779 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2512.14779v2 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.14779 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 254 words

Related coverage