The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
FuXi: A cascade machine learning forecasting system for 15-day global weather forecast
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1038/s41612-023-00512-1 · Paper page
Abstract
Over the past few years, due to the rapid development of machine learning (ML) models for weather forecasting, state-of-the-art ML models have shown superior performance compared to the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)'s high-resolution forecst(HRES) in 10-day forecasts at a spatial resolution of 0.25°. However, the challenge remains to perform comparably to the ECMWF ensemble mean (EM) in 15-day forecasts. Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of mitigating the accumulation of forecast errors for effective long-term forecasts. Despite numerous efforts to reduce accumulation errors, including autoregressive multi-time step loss, using a single model is found to be insufficient to achieve optimal performance in both short and long lead times. Therefore, we present FuXi, a cascaded ML weather forecasting system that provides 15-day global forecasts with a temporal resolution of 6 hours and a spatial resolution of 0.25°. FuXi is developed using 39 years of the ECMWF ERA5 reanalysis dataset. The performance evaluation, based on latitude-weighted root mean square error (RMSE) and anomaly correlation coefficient (ACC), demonstrates that FuXi has comparable forecast performance to ECMWF EM in 15-day forecasts, making FuXi the first ML-based weather forecasting system to accomplish this achievement.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
VideoMAE: Masked Autoencoders are Data-Efficient Learners for Self-Supervised Video Pre-Training
Tong, Z., Song, Y., Wang, J., & Wang, L. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.12602 · Cited by 909
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Probabilistic weather forecasting with machine learning
Price, I., Sanchez-Gonzalez, A., Alet, F., Andersson, T. R., El-Kadi, A., Masters, D., Ewalds, T., Stott, J., Mohamed, S., Battaglia, P., et al. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08252-9 · Cited by 434
Metadata
- Authors
- Li, H., Chen, L., Zhong, X., Zhang, F., Cheng, Y., Xu, Y., & Qi, Y.
- Affiliations
- Fudan University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Li, Hao
- Qi, Yuan
- Venue
- npj Climate and Atmospheric Science
- Published
- 2023-07-12
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2397-3722 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4388728292
- Cited by
- 369
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 135 · 2025: 154 · 2024: 77 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 40.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- npj Climate and Atmospheric Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Hydrological Forecasting Using AI
- Social Sciences › Transportation › Traffic Prediction and Management Techniques
- Keywords
- ECMWF ensemble, ERA5 reanalysis, 2 m air temperature, forecast uncertainty, initial perturbations, parameter perturbation, long lead time forecasting
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review