Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchMachine learning

analiza aiqbench

This study evaluates outage predictions built on two AI weather models, GraphCast and FourCastNet, and its findings center on ML evaluation issues: lead-time skill decay, leakage from antecedent land-surface predictors that include future weather, attribution of skill to static features, and calibration of prediction intervals. The utility-operations framing is real, but the AI forecasting pipeline is central to the work, not incidental. Readers should note the tropical cyclone interval coverage (0.476 against a nominal 0.90) and that the calibration fix is diagnostic only, since hazard class is unknown at forecast time.
Sursă care acoperăarXiv
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

Forecast lead time and the timing of crew deployment for weather-driven power outages using AI weather models

arXiv3 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2610.20918v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Utilities request mutual aid crews to restore power after severe storms, and requesting early secures more crews but relies on less accurate forecasts. We examined how forecast lead time affects the value of outage predictions for crew deployment, using operational forecasts from two AI weather models, GraphCast and FourCastNet, to predict outage occurrence for counties across the contiguous United States 24 to 120 hours ahead. Forecasts were evaluated by the share of outage burden captured by the counties where crews would be staged. Captured burden declined with lead time: the loss between three and five days was significant in all analyses, whereas the loss within three days was significant only for outages that had not yet started. Early deployment with all requested crews outperformed late deployment with fewer, and we report the availability ratio at which the two break even. Antecedent land surface predictors computed at forecast valid time include weather from the forecast period, which inflates their skill by 42 to 53% and reverses their apparent advantage over forecast meteorology at long lead times. Computed correctly, they improved occurrence skill by 17.5% at 24 hours but did not significantly change captured burden, a gap that attribution analysis linked to their static component. Prediction intervals covered only 0.476 of tropical cyclone events against a nominal 0.90. Calibration by hazard class corrected most of this shortfall at an 11% cost in interval width, as a diagnostic only, because hazard class is known only after the event.

Abstract:Utilities request mutual aid crews to restore power after severe storms, and requesting early secures more crews but relies on less accurate forecasts. We examined how forecast lead time affects the value of outage predictions for crew deployment, using operational forecasts from two AI weather models, GraphCast and FourCastNet, to predict outage occurrence for counties across the contiguous United States 24 to 120 hours ahead. Forecasts were evaluated by the share of outage burden captured by the counties where crews would be staged. Captured burden declined with lead time: the loss between three and five days was significant in all analyses, whereas the loss within three days was significant only for outages that had not yet started. Early deployment with all requested crews outperformed late deployment with fewer, and we report the availability ratio at which the two break even. Antecedent land surface predictors computed at forecast valid time include weather from the forecast period, which inflates their skill by 42 to 53% and reverses their apparent advantage over forecast meteorology at long lead times. Computed correctly, they improved occurrence skill by 17.5% at 24 hours but did not significantly change captured burden, a gap that attribution analysis linked to their static component. Prediction intervals covered only 0.476 of tropical cyclone events against a nominal 0.90. Calibration by hazard class corrected most of this shortfall at an 11% cost in interval width, as a diagnostic only, because hazard class is known only after the event.

Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2610.20918 [physics.ao-ph]

(or arXiv:2610.20918v1 [physics.ao-ph] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.20918 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

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.

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 344 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe