Are we misdiagnosing ensemble forecast reliability? On the insufficiency of Spread-Error and rank-based reliability metrics
Arlan Dirkson, Mark Buehner

TL;DR
This paper critically examines the limitations of traditional reliability metrics for ensemble forecasts, demonstrating their insufficiency and proposing a new diagnostic to improve reliability assessment.
Contribution
It introduces a novel reliability diagnostic based on three statistics that better distinguish climatology and predictability contributions, addressing shortcomings of existing metrics.
Findings
Spread-Error equality is necessary but not sufficient for reliability.
Rank histograms can falsely indicate reliability due to covariance structure.
The new diagnostic separates climatology and predictability effects.
Abstract
It has been documented that Spread-Error equality and a flat rank histogram are necessary but insufficient for demonstrating ensemble forecast reliability. Nevertheless, these metrics are heavily relied upon, both in the literature and at operational numerical weather prediction centers. In this study, we demonstrate theoretically why the Spread-Error relationship is necessary but insufficient for diagnosing reliability up to second order, even when mean bias is absent or accounted for. Assuming joint normality between ensemble members and the reference truth, we further show with idealized experiments that the same covariance structure responsible for this insufficiency also produces false diagnoses of reliability with the rank histogram and the reliability component of the continuous rank probability score. Under this structure and when the ensemble mean is meaningfully different from…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
