Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 77 references

SIREN: Towards End-to-End Extreme-Weather Early Warning with Experience-Grounded LLM Agents

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Grounding LLM weather agents in historical cases closes much of the gap on end-to-end extreme-weather early warning.

desk verdict Real benchmark gap filled and solid systems work; biggest gains sit on the softest labels, so treat the headline numbers as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24588 v1 pith:E6VMC3NU submitted 2026-07-27 cs.AI

Hang Ni , Weijia Zhang , Fan Liu , Mengqian Lu , Hao Liu This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords extreme-weatherearlywarninglargelanguagemodelagentexperience-groundedagentssystemsSIREN-Benchcase-basedreasoningimpact-basedweatherscience
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Extreme-weather early warning is not a single forecast: it is a chain from characterizing a hazard, predicting where and when it develops, assessing impacts, and deciding what warnings and responses to issue. Existing LLM weather agents mostly handle isolated scientific steps and leave that chain to human experts. This paper builds SIREN-Bench—600 questions across 19 tasks spanning four warning procedures plus full end-to-end chains on U.S. 2021 extremes—and shows current weather agents fall well short. It then introduces SIREN: a shared execution environment of grids, mesoanalysis images, maps, and tools, plus agent harnesses that reuse prior years’ cases by retrieval, skill rehearsal, and task-specific machine-learning models. Across three LLM backbones, experience-grounded SIREN variants beat strong weather-agent baselines on both atomic procedures and operational chains, arguing that operational warning skill comes from coupling tools with historical experience, not parametric knowledge alone.

What carries the argument

Experience-grounded agent harnesses on a shared agentic environment: SIREN-Base runs multi-turn code over meteorological grids, mesoanalysis images, geospatial layers, and analytical tools; SIREN-RAG, SIREN-Skill, and SIREN-Modeling respectively inject analogous past cases, distill reusable procedural skills from rehearsal trajectories, and train task-specific predictors from the historical case base before solving the live task.

What would settle it

Re-run the same agent family on independently re-aligned 2021 chains or a held-out later year with stricter spatiotemporal matching and human-only labels; if SIREN’s gains over baselines shrink or reverse on impact and decision stages, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SIREN shows that end-to-end extreme-weather early warning can be posed as an agentic problem and that agents which couple a unified weather evidence-and-tool environment with historical-case harnesses (case retrieval, skill distillation from rehearsal, and predictive modeling on past cases) substantially outperform existing weather-agent frameworks on both individual EWS-aligned procedures and full warning chains on SIREN-Bench.

Load-bearing premise

That softly aligned multi-source event records and carefully filtered question-answer pairs are faithful enough operational ground truth that higher benchmark scores mean real warning skill, especially on the small set of end-to-end chains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Operational early-warning automation should be evaluated as interdependent procedure chains, not only isolated forecast or diagnosis tasks.
  • Historical case bases become first-class infrastructure for weather agents, not optional few-shot context.
  • Complementary experience mechanisms (analogy, skills, learned predictors) can be mixed by procedure rather than treated as a single agent style.
  • A guarded tool environment with grids, imagery, and geospatial layers is a necessary baseline before claiming LLM-only warning competence.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Regions and hazards with sparse or rapidly evolving analogues (fire, tornado, some coastal states) may need denser local case libraries or different transfer rules before deployment.
  • Positive cross-procedure dependencies suggest investing first in characterization and prediction quality will compound into better impact and decision stages in live systems.
  • The same harness pattern—environment plus retrieval/skills/modeling over institutional history—could transfer to other multi-stage public-safety workflows such as flood response or wildfire evacuation planning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces SIREN-Bench, a benchmark of 600 QA instances over 2021 U.S. extreme-weather events spanning 19 subtasks in five categories — event characterization (EC), spatiotemporal prediction (SP), impact assessment (IA), responsive decision-making (RD), and an end-to-end warning chain — constructed from NOAA SED/SPC, FEMA, and OEDI records via soft cross-source alignment with LLM-plus-expert QC. It then presents SIREN, an agent framework combining an executable environment (HRRR grids, SPC mesoanalysis imagery, geospatial layers, guarded code execution, seven tool families) with four harnesses that differ in their use of prior-year QA cases: Base (none), RAG (retrieval), Skill (rehearsal/distillation), and Modeling (agent-trained predictors). Experiments across three LLM backbones and five reproduced weather-agent baselines report best-variant Overall ~0.44 vs. ~0.35 for the strongest baseline, and chain Overall 0.379 vs. 0.286 (Gemini), with subtask, event-type, state, and month breakdowns, an LLM-judge human-alignment study, and a chain dependency analysis.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful contribution: to my knowledge the first benchmark and agent framework treating extreme-weather early warning as an end-to-end operational chain rather than isolated scientific tasks, with a publicly released benchmark/environment. The empirical protocol is broader than typical for this literature: three backbones × five reproduced baselines, fine-grained subtask/event/state/month slices, process-level reliability metrics (CPR/EPR), validated LLM evaluators, and an expert-reviewed case study. The experience-grounding harnesses are cleanly separated, enabling controlled attribution. The main risks to significance are (i) a plausible label-convention leakage channel through the historical case base that the current experiments cannot exclude, concentrated exactly where the gains are largest, and (ii) the statistical thinness of the headline chain result (n=24, single run, no variance). Both are addressable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.2.2, Table 2] §3.2.2, Table 2: The central claim — that experience grounding improves operational warning skill — is confounded by a leakage channel the current design cannot rule out. The historical case base K is built by the same pipeline with the same label conventions as the test items, and the gains concentrate precisely where labels are softest: on Qwen, IA rises 0.266→0.521 (RAG) and RD 0.253→0.554 (Modeling), while EC — whose labels come directly from SED metadata — shows no gain or a decrease (Base 0.509 → RAG 0.488) and SP is flat (0.226→0.230). The §2.3.3 leakage check only excludes ground truth from the question text; it does not address cross-year transfer of label priors (typical injury counts, damage magnitudes, alert codes) via retrieved or trained-on cases. A concrete, inexpensive test: an answer-masked/shuffled ablation for SIREN-RAG (retrieve the same cases with reference answers r
  2. [§2.3.2, Table 3] §2.3.2, Table 3: The soft cross-source alignment strategy is described only qualitatively — 'a predefined threshold' on timestamps and 'neighboring counties' for location — with no numeric tolerances, no matching precision/recall estimate, and no reported rate of expert verification of matched events. This matters most for the warning-chain category, where each of the n=24 chains requires the same real event to be correctly identified across sources for four sequential procedures; a small number of mismatches would materially change Table 3. Please specify the tolerance values, report how many candidate matches were accepted/rejected, and provide a manual audit (even on a sample) of cross-source event identity for chain instances.
  3. [Appendix D, Tables 3–4] Appendix D, Tables 2–4: Each configuration is run once with no variance estimate or significance testing. Temperature-0 decoding removes sampling noise but not nondeterminism from retries, transient service failures, and tool-execution paths, which the paper itself documents (EPR as low as 0.892). The thinness is acute for the headline chain result: n=24, one backbone, single run, 0.379 vs. 0.286. Relatedly, Table 4's claim that 'consistent dependencies confirm that performance propagates' overstates the evidence: with n=24, ρ=0.196–0.282 is not distinguishable from zero at conventional levels (critical |ρ|≈0.41 at α=0.05), and only the (EC/SP)→IA value of 0.589 clears it. Please add repeated runs (at least for chain evaluation), report confidence intervals or paired tests, and temper the dependency language accordingly.
  4. [§4.2, Table 3] §4.2, Table 3: Chain evaluation is reported only for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, whereas individual-procedure evaluation uses three backbones; no reason is given for the asymmetry. Moreover, the 'complementary harnesses' narrative is partially contradicted at chain level: SIREN-Modeling (0.255) falls below SIREN-Base (0.268), and SIREN-Skill has the worst EC of all methods (0.233). The chain claim currently rests on a single variant (RAG), a single backbone, and 24 instances. Extending chain evaluation to all three backbones (or justifying the restriction and softening the conclusion) is needed before 'SIREN outperforms baselines on end-to-end warning chains' can stand as stated.
  5. [§4, Appendix D] §4, Appendix D: Baseline reproduction conditions are under-specified. The text states that baselines use 'identical benchmark inputs and the same evaluation pipeline,' but it does not say whether Zephyrus, EWE, ClimAgent, ClimateAgent, and HVR-Met were given access to the same evidence sources (HRRR fields, mesoanalysis imagery, geospatial layers) and tool families as SIREN agents, or whether they ran in their native environments. If evidence access differs, Table 2 confounds environment with method. The SIREN-Base row partially controls for this (and its below-baseline Qwen result is honestly reported), but a one-paragraph specification of what each baseline could see and call is necessary to interpret the comparison.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§2.4] §2.4 (NR metric): RE = |ŷ−y|/|y| is undefined when the reference y=0, which occurs naturally for injury, death, and damage counts. State how zero references are handled (excluded, clipped, or an additive alternative).
  2. [Appendix I] Appendix I, Table 9: The 0–10 evaluator's 66.67% agreement rate is modest — roughly one in three judge assessments were not deemed reasonable by annotators. Report the number of annotators and instances, and consider noting the sensitivity of the Physical Understanding subtask (Fig. 3) to this evaluator.
  3. [§2.4, Appendix D] §2.4 (GL) and Appendix D: The state-credit weight λ, the retrieval cap of six cases (RAG), and the three-case rehearsal cap (Skill) are fixed without sensitivity analysis. Even a coarse sweep on one backbone would help readers judge robustness to these choices.
  4. [Tables 2–3] Tables 2–3: Define the 'Overall' aggregation explicitly — whether it is an instance-weighted mean across categories (which have unequal counts: 64/160/192/160) or a category-balanced mean, and likewise how EC/SP/IA/RD combine into chain Overall.
  5. [Front matter] The ACM template placeholders remain ('Conference acronym 'XX', 2018 copyright, Woodstock NY, DOI placeholder). These must be updated before camera-ready.
  6. [Figure 3] Figure 3: Subtask abbreviations (TU, PU, SD, …) require cross-referencing Table 5 in Appendix A; a compact inline legend or expanded tick labels would make the main-text figure self-contained.
  7. [§5] Related work: the analog/enalog forecasting tradition in operational meteorology (historical-analog methods for impact-based warning) is a natural intellectual precursor to the RAG harness and would strengthen positioning beyond LLM-agent citations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No derivation-chain circularity: empirical agent benchmark with temporal holdout, not a self-defined prediction.

full rationale

SIREN is an empirical systems paper. Its central claim is that an agentic weather environment plus experience harnesses (RAG over prior-year cases, skill distillation, task-specific ML) improves scores on SIREN-Bench relative to weather-agent baselines. There is no first-principles derivation, uniqueness theorem, or fitted constant that is renamed as a prediction. Historical cases K are prior-year QA pairs used as retrieval/rehearsal/training evidence against a 2021 test year—a standard temporal split, not X defined in terms of Y. SIREN-Modeling’s train-then-predict loop is ordinary supervised learning on held-out years, not a parameter fit that forces the reported metric by construction. Self-citations (related agent/climate work from overlapping labs) appear as related work or baselines to beat, not as load-bearing external uniqueness results that forbid alternatives. Soft cross-source label alignment and same-pipeline case construction raise leakage/validity questions, but those are correctness and benchmark-design risks, not circular reduction of a claimed derivation to its inputs. No quoted step exhibits Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

Load-bearing premises are methodological and data-construction choices rather than physical laws: that the four EWS-mapped procedures plus a chain are the right operational decomposition; that soft spatiotemporal matching yields same-event ground truth; that historical-year cases are valid experience without test leakage; and that the chosen metrics (exact match, bounded relative score, adjacency localization, LLM/recall open-ended scores) track operational usefulness. No new physical entities are postulated. Free parameters are engineering knobs (retrieval/rehearsal counts, adjacency credit λ, soft-alignment tolerances, retry budgets) that affect measured scores but are not fitted to claim a universal constant.

free parameters (5)
  • SIREN-RAG max retrieved cases = ≤6
    Appendix D sets retrieval to at most six historical cases; this hand choice affects analogy quality and reported gains.
  • SIREN-Skill rehearsal case count = ≤3
    At most three practice cases before target solving; controls skill distillation compute and transfer.
  • Geospatial localization state-credit λ = unspecified numeric default in text
    LS mixes state and county hop distances with weight λ; changes partial-credit scores for GL tasks.
  • Soft cross-source alignment tolerances = predefined thresholds (not numerically fixed in main text)
    Timestamp and neighboring-county tolerances define which multi-source records become chain ground truth; not given as fixed public constants in the main text.
  • Decoding temperature and single-run protocol = temperature=0; n_runs=1
    Temperature 0 and one run per configuration make point estimates the sole reported performance without uncertainty.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Operational extreme-weather early warning can be faithfully decomposed into event characterization, spatiotemporal prediction, impact assessment, responsive decision-making, and their sequential chain as in WMO/EWS pillar mappings.
    Section 1–2 and Figure 1 treat this four-plus-chain split as the problem definition used for both benchmark and claims.
  • ad hoc to paper Soft spatiotemporal matching across NOAA/FEMA/OEDI records identifies the same real-world event well enough for chained supervision.
    §2.3.2 acknowledges cross-source time/location disagreements and adopts tolerance-based alignment without external validation metrics.
  • domain assumption Prior-year QA cases are usable experience for 2021 tasks without contaminating evaluation labels or leaking answers.
    §3.1.1 and harness designs assume historical K is valid analogical/training evidence for held-out 2021 instances.
  • ad hoc to paper Task metrics (MC accuracy, bounded RS, adjacency/haversine localization, essential-point recall and 0–10 LLM judge) are adequate proxies for operational answer quality.
    §2.4 defines composite scoring; Appendix I shows only moderate LLM–human alignment for open-ended judges.
  • domain assumption Tool-mediated code execution over HRRR, SPC mesoanalysis, geospatial layers, and impact tools is a valid substrate for comparing agent frameworks.
    §3.1 environment is shared by SIREN variants; baselines are adapted into the comparison setting as described in §4.
invented entities (3)
  • SIREN-Bench independent evidence
    purpose: Provide 600 QA instances across 19 tasks covering four warning procedures and an end-to-end chain.
    New evaluation artifact constructed by the authors from public U.S. sources; central to all claims.
  • SIREN agentic environment E
    purpose: Unify multimodal weather evidence, analytical tools, and guarded code execution for end-to-end warning workflows.
    Engineering system postulated as the execution substrate; existence is by construction in the paper.
  • Experience-grounded harness family (SIREN-RAG / Skill / Modeling)
    purpose: Inject historical cases via analogy, procedural skill distillation, or trained predictors into the base agent loop.
    Named agent variants combining known strategies; not a new physical entity but a paper-specific system decomposition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SIREN: Towards End-to-End Extreme-Weather Early Warning with Experience-Grounded LLM Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E6VMC3NU

@misc{pith2026260724588,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SIREN: Towards End-to-End Extreme-Weather Early Warning with Experience-Grounded LLM Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E6VMC3NU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24588}
}
read the original abstract

Early warning of extreme weather is essential for mitigating the societal, economic, and environmental risks posed by hazardous weather events. However, expert-centered warning workflows are costly, labor-intensive, and difficult to scale throughout the warning-to-action process. Although recent advances in Large Language Model (LLM) agents have enabled the automation of weather-related tasks, existing studies remain centered on isolated scientific tasks and overlook the chain of interdependent processes required for operational extreme-weather early warning. To bridge this gap, this study investigates automated end-to-end extreme-weather early warning through LLM agents. We first develop SIREN-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark comprising 600 question-answer instances across 19 tasks, and covering four individual warning procedures and an end-to-end warning chain. Evaluation on SIREN-Bench reveals substantial capability gaps in existing weather agent frameworks. This motivates us to develop SIREN, an experience-grounded agent framework inspired by experts' use of historical cases, which combines an agentic execution environment integrating heterogeneous weather evidence and tools with a family of agent harnesses that exploit historical cases through retrieval, skill distillation, and predictive modeling. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SIREN outperforms weather-agent baselines on both individual warning procedures and end-to-end warning chains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24588 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Connections to the EWS pipeline [33]. labor-intensive, difficult to scale, and vulnerable to cascading er￾rors across interdependent stages. Existing software systems and machine learning (ML) models have improved individual compo￾nents, such as detection, forecasting, and diagnostic analysis, but typically address isolated tasks, leaving human experts to inte￾grate evidence and manage the end-to-end warning process… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall framework of SIREN, which comprises an executable agentic environment and a family of agents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Subtask-level performance, with full subtask names and detailed descriptions provided in Appendix A. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance across states. 4.1.5 Temporal Analysis Across Months [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance across months. 4.2 End-to-end Chain Evaluation We further evaluate complete operational task chains that sequen￾tially solve four individual procedures for the same event. 4.2.1 End-to-end Performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Method comparison across event types. Each subfigure uses one LLM backbone and each panel represents one event [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Method comparison across the 12 most represented states. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: State-level method comparison for convective storms with Qwen3.7-Plus. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: State-level method comparison for tropical systems with Qwen3.7-Plus. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: State-level method comparison for winter weather with Qwen3.7-Plus. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: State-level method comparison for tornadoes with Qwen3.7-Plus. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Method comparison across calendar months. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Saugat Adhikari, Da Yan, Zhe Jiang, Jiao Han, Zelin Xu, Yupu Zhang, Arpan Sainju, and Yang Zhou. 2025. Scaling Terrain-Aware Spatial Machine Learning for Flood Mapping on Large Scale Earth Imagery Data.ACM Trans. Spatial Algorithms Syst.11, 2, Article 9 (April 2025), 29 pages. doi:10.1145/3703157

    work page doi:10.1145/3703157 2025

  2. [2]

    Gustau Camps-Valls, Miguel-Ángel Fernández-Torres, Kai-Hendrik Cohrs, Adrian Höhl, Andrea Castelletti, Aytac Pacal, Claire Robin, Francesco Martinuzzi, Ioannis Papoutsis, Ioannis Prapas, et al. 2025. Artificial intelligence for modeling and understanding extreme weather and climate events.Nature Communications16, 1 (2025), 1919

    2025

  3. [3]

    Jun Shern Chan, Neil Chowdhury, Oliver Jaffe, James Aung, Dane Sherburn, Evan Mays, Giulio Starace, Kevin Liu, Leon Maksin, Tejal Patwardhan, Aleksander Madry, and Lilian Weng. 2025. MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineering. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/f...

    2025

  4. [4]

    Jian Chen, Peilin Zhou, Yining Hua, Dading Chong, Meng Cao, Yaowei Li, Wei Chen, Bing Zhu, Junwei Liang, and Zixuan Yuan. 2025. ClimateIQA: A New Dataset and Benchmark to Advance Vision-Language Models in Mete- orology Anomalies Analysis. InProceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Confer- ence on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V.2(Toronto ON, Canada)(KDD ’...

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Shengchao Chen, Guodong Long, Jing Jiang, and Chengqi Zhang. 2024. Personal- ized adapter for large meteorology model on devices: towards weather foundation models. InProceedings of the 38th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems(Vancouver, BC, Canada)(NIPS ’24). Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, Article 2696, 47 pages

    2024

  6. [6]

    Erin Coughlan De Perez, Kristoffer B Berse, Lianne Angelico C Depante, Evan Easton-Calabria, Elton Pierre R Evidente, Theodore Ezike, Dorothy Heinrich, Christopher Jack, Alfredo Mahar Francisco A Lagmay, Selma Lendelvo, et al

  7. [7]

    Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2026. OpenFEMA Data Sets. https: //www.fema.gov/about/openfema/data-sets. Accessed: July 6, 2026

    2026

  8. [8]

    Giacomo Gonella, Gian Maria Campedelli, Stefano Menini, and Marco Guerini

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Google. 2026. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite. https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/ models/gemini-3.1-flash-lite. Accessed: July 8, 2026

    2026

  2. [10]

    Siyuan Guo, Cheng Deng, Ying Wen, Hechang Chen, Yi Chang, and Jun Wang

  3. [11]

    Zijie Guo, Jiong Wang, Fenghua Ling, Wangxu Wei, Xiaoyu Yue, Zhe Jiang, Wanghan Xu, Jing-Jia Luo, Lijing Cheng, Yoo-Geun Ham, et al . 2025. A self- evolving AI agent system for climate science.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.17311 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Sirui Hong, Yizhang Lin, Bang Liu, Bangbang Liu, Binhao Wu, Ceyao Zhang, Danyang Li, Jiaqi Chen, Jiayi Zhang, Jinlin Wang, Li Zhang, Lingyao Zhang, Min Yang, Mingchen Zhuge, Taicheng Guo, Tuo Zhou, Wei Tao, Robert Tang, Xiangtao Lu, Xiawu Zheng, Xinbing Liang, Yaying Fei, Yuhe...

    2025

  5. [13]

    Zhe Jiang, Jiong Wang, Xiaoyu Yue, Zijie Guo, Wenlong Zhang, Fenghua Ling, Wanli Ouyang, and Lei Bai. 2025. EWE: An Agentic Framework for Extreme Weather Analysis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21444(2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Soyeon Kim, Cheongwoong Kang, Myeongjin Lee, Eun-Chul Chang, Lee Jaedeok, and Jaesik Choi. 2026. K-MetBench: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Fine- Grained Evaluation of Expert Reasoning, Locality, and Multimodality in Meteorol- ogy. InFindings of the Association for Computat...

    2026 doi

  7. [15]

    Chenyue Li, Hyeonjae Kim, Wen Deng, Mengxi Jin, HUANG Wen, Mengqian Lu, and Binhang Yuan. 2026. ClimateAgent: Multi-Agent Orchestration for Complex Climate Data Science Workflows.Transactions on Machine Learning Research (2026). https://openreview.net/forum?id=XLWvXNumGa

    2026

  8. [16]

    Haobo Li, Zhaowei Wang, Jiachen Wang, Yueya Wang, Alexis Kai Hon Lau, and Huamin Qu. 2025. CLLMate: A Multimodal Benchmark for Weather and Climate Events Forecasting. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Christos Christodoul...

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    Fan Liu, Xiaozhao Zeng, and Hao Liu. 2026. Towards Multimodal Data-Driven Scientific Discovery Powered by LLM Agents. InThe Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id= kZHSvETWdi

    2026

  10. [18]

    Chengqian Ma, Zhanxiang Hua, Alexandra Anderson-Frey, Vikram Iyer, Xin Liu, and Lianhui Qin. 2024. Weatherqa: Can multimodal language models reason about severe weather?arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11217(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2026. High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR). https://rapidrefresh.noaa.gov/hrrr/. Accessed: July 7, 2026

    2026

  12. [20]

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2026. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. https://www.noaa.gov/. Accessed: July 6, 2026

    2026

  13. [21]

    Hang Ni, Weijia Zhang, and Hao Liu. 2026. UniExtreme: A Universal Foundation Model for Extreme Weather Forecasting. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V.1(Republic of Korea)(KDD ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New ...

    2026

  14. [22]

    NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. 2026. Storm Events Database. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/stormevents/. Accessed: July 6, 2026

    2026

  15. [23]

    NOAA/NWS Storm Prediction Center. 2026. Storm Prediction Center Mesoscale Analysis Pages. https://www.spc.noaa.gov/exper/mesoanalysis/. Accessed: July 7, 2026

    2026

  16. [24]

    NOAA/NWS Storm Prediction Center. 2026. Storm Prediction Center Mesoscale Discussions. https://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/md/. Accessed: July 6, 2026

    2026

  17. [25]

    OpenAI. 2026. Introducing GPT-5.4 mini and nano. https://openai.com/index/ introducing-gpt-5-4-mini-and-nano/. Accessed: July 8, 2026

    2026

  18. [26]

    OpenStreetMap contributors. 2026. OpenStreetMap Data. https://www. openstreetmap.org/. Accessed: July 7, 2026

    2026

  19. [27]

    Sally Potter, Sara Harrison, and Peter Kreft. 2021. The benefits and challenges of implementing impact-based severe weather warning systems: perspectives of weather, flood, and emergency management personnel.Weather, climate, and society13, 2 (2021), 303–314

    2021

  20. [28]

    Qwen Team. 2026. Qwen3.6-27B: Flagship-Level Coding in a 27B Dense Model. https://qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.6-27b. Accessed: July 16, 2026

    2026

  21. [29]

    Qwen Team. 2026. Qwen3.7-Plus: Multimodal Agent Intelligence. https://qwen. ai/blog?id=qwen3.7-plus. Accessed: July 8, 2026

    2026

  22. [30]

    Evan Racah, Christopher Beckham, Tegan Maharaj, Samira Ebrahimi Kahou, Prabhat, and Christopher Pal. 2017. Extreme weather: a large-scale climate dataset for semi-supervised detection, localization, and understanding of extreme weather events. InProceedings of the 31st Interna...

    2017

  23. [31]

    Nian Ran, Peng Xiao, Yue Wang, Wesley Shi, Jianxin Lin, Qi Meng, and Richard All- mendinger. 2025. HR-Extreme: A High-Resolution Dataset for Extreme Weather Forecasting. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions. https://openreview.net/forum?id=5AtlfHYCPa

    2025

  24. [32]

    Stephan Rasp, Stephan Hoyer, Alexander Merose, Ian Langmore, Peter Battaglia, Tyler Russell, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Vivian Yang, Rob Carver, Shreya Agrawal, Matthew Chantry, Zied Ben Bouallegue, Peter Dueben, Carla Bromberg, Jared Sisk, Luke Barrington, Aaron Bell, and Fei Sha

  25. [33]

    Markus Reichstein, Vitus Benson, Jan Blunk, Gustau Camps-Valls, Felix Creutzig, Carina J Fearnley, Boran Han, Kai Kornhuber, Nasim Rahaman, Bernhard Schölkopf, et al. 2025. Early warning of complex climate risk with integrated artificial intelligence.Nature Communications16, 1...

    2025

  26. [34]

    Shuo Tang, Jiadong Zhang, Gengxian Zhou, Qizhao Jin, Qinxuan Wang, Yi Hu, Ning Hu, Hongchang Ren, Lingli He, Shiming Xiang, Jingtao Ding, Jian Xu, Jiaolan Fu, and Cheng-Lin Liu. 2026. HVR-Met: A Hypothesis-Verification-Replanning Agentic System for Extreme Weather Diagnosis. I...

    2026

  27. [35]

    United Nations. n.d.. Early Warnings for All. https://www.un.org/en/ climatechange/early-warnings-for-all. Accessed: July 27, 2026

    2026

  28. [36]

    e2023MS004019 2023MS004019

    WeatherBench 2: A Benchmark for the Next Generation of Data- Driven Global Weather Models.Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems16, 6 (2024), e2023MS004019. e2023MS004019 2023MS004019. arXiv:https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2023MS004019 doi:10.102...

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Department of Energy

    U.S. Department of Energy. 2026. Open Energy Data Initiative. https://data. openei.org/. Accessed: July 6, 2026

    2026

  30. [38]

    Sumanth Varambally, Marshall Fisher, Jas Thakker, Yiwei Chen, Zhirui Xia, Yasaman Jafari, Ruijia Niu, Manas Jain, Veeramakali Vignesh Manivannan, Zachary Novack, Luyu Han, Srikar Eranky, Salva Rühling Cachay, Taylor Berg- Kirkpatrick, Duncan Watson-Parris, Yian Ma, and Rose Yu...

    2026

  31. [39]

    Hao Wang, Jindong Han, Wei Fan, and Hao Liu. 2026. ClimAgent: LLM as Agents for Autonomous Open-ended Climate Science Analysis. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026, Maria Liakata, Viviane P. Moreira, Jiajun Zhang, and David Jurgens (Eds.). Ass...

    2026 doi

  32. [40]

    United States Census Bureau. 2025. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. https://www.census. gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/tiger-line-file.html. 2025 release; accessed: July 7, 2026

    2025

  33. [41]

    2015.WMO Guidelines on Multi-hazard Impact-based Forecast and Warning Services

    World Meteorological Organization. 2015.WMO Guidelines on Multi-hazard Impact-based Forecast and Warning Services. Technical Report WMO-No. 1150. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

    2015

  34. [42]

    World Meteorological Organization. n.d.. WMO and the Early Warnings for All Initiative. https://wmo.int/activities/early-warnings-all/wmo-and-early- warnings-all-initiative. Accessed: July 27, 2026

    2026

  35. [43]

    Zherui Yang, Fan Liu, Yansong Ning, and Hao Liu. 2026. EvoDS: Self-Evolving Autonomous Data Science Agent with Skill Learning and Context Management. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.03841(2026)

    2026 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Jon Weers. 2015. Utility Outage Information. Open Energy Data Initiative (OEDI), National Renewable Energy Laboratory, https://data.openei.org/submissions/460. Published: August 28, 2015; accessed: July 6, 2026

    2015

  37. [45]

    Zinan Zheng, Yang Liu, Nuo Chen, Juepeng Zheng, Hong Cheng, and Jia Li

  38. [48]

    Kaikai Zhang, Xiang Wang, Haoluo Zhao, Nan Chen, Mengyang Yu Jing-Jia Luo, Tao Song, and Fan Meng. 2026. TianJi: An autonomous AI meteorologist for discovering physical mechanisms in atmospheric science.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.27738(2026)

    2026

  39. [50]

    InForty-third International Conference on Machine Learning

    WeatherSyn: An Instruction Tuning MLLM For Weather Forecasting Report Generation. InForty-third International Conference on Machine Learning. https://openreview.net/forum?id=WlScVvMwpB A Task Taxonomy Table 5 summarizes the 18 atomic subtasks, their abbreviations, evaluation p...

    2018

  40. [51]

    At each turn, briefly state what is known and what evidence is still needed

  41. [52]

    If further evidence is required, provide a short plan and pseudocode, then take exactly one code-execution action

  42. [53]

    Do not repeat an unsuccessful action without addressing its failure

    Use the returned observation to revise the next action. Do not repeat an unsuccessful action without addressing its failure

  43. [54]

    When the task depends on external evidence or analytical tools, do not produce the final solution before at least one successful execution observation

  44. [55]

    Preserve the exact answer type and format required by the target question

    Finish only when the accumulated evidence supports the requested answer. Preserve the exact answer type and format required by the target question

  45. [56]

    Code Execution and Response Rules Use only the documented analytical tools and the guarded code-execution interface

    For an operational chain, solve only the current individual procedure and carry its completed answer forward before moving to the next procedure. Code Execution and Response Rules Use only the documented analytical tools and the guarded code-execution interface. Do not access ...

    2018

  46. [57]

    Inspect the complete historical collection relevant to the target subtask

  47. [58]

    Consider task intent, event conditions, reference time, location, event type, question form, answer format, source variables, and available labels

    Rank cases by their usefulness for the target task. Consider task intent, event conditions, reference time, location, event type, question form, answer format, source variables, and available labels

  48. [59]

    Preserve each selected case’s question, reference answer, and event metadata so that its analogy remains interpretable

    Select at most six cases. Preserve each selected case’s question, reference answer, and event metadata so that its analogy remains interpretable

  49. [60]

    Do not copy a historical answer without checking it against the current event evidence

    Use the selected cases as evidence and answer-format references. Do not copy a historical answer without checking it against the current event evidence

  50. [61]

    Experience Guidance: SIREN-Skill Rehearsal You are the rehearsal stage of SIREN-Skill

    Continue the evidence-grounded solving workflow with the selected cases in context. Experience Guidance: SIREN-Skill Rehearsal You are the rehearsal stage of SIREN-Skill. Historical cases are practice tasks for acquiring reusable solving procedures, not direct answer examples....

  51. [62]

    Inspect the complete historical collection relevant to the target subtask and select at most three cases with the highest rehearsal value

  52. [63]

    For each selected case, hide its reference answer and solve the rehearsal question using the same evidence-grounded workflow as the target task

  53. [64]

    After completing the rehearsal, reveal the reference answer and invoke the Skill Refinement Prompt to compare the solution process with the reference

  54. [65]

    Do not store event-specific answers or details that would not transfer to another case

    Retain only reusable procedural guidance. Do not store event-specific answers or details that would not transfer to another case

  55. [66]

    Skill Refinement Prompt You are refining the reusable skill guidance of SIREN-Skill after one rehearsal case

    Repeat rehearsal and refinement for the selected cases, then solve the target task using the accumulated skill guidance. Skill Refinement Prompt You are refining the reusable skill guidance of SIREN-Skill after one rehearsal case. SIREN: Towards End-to-End Extreme-Weather Earl...

    2018

  56. [67]

    Identify which reasoning steps, evidence choices, tool-use strategies, or answer-format decisions were effective

  57. [68]

    Diagnose errors by comparing the rehearsal solution with the reference answer and the supporting evidence

  58. [69]

    Keep one reusable procedure per item

    Add or revise only short, actionable guidance that can improve future tasks of the same kind. Keep one reusable procedure per item

  59. [70]

    Preserve useful existing guidance and remove an item only when the rehearsal provides clear evidence that it is misleading

  60. [71]

    Return only the revised skill guidance

    Exclude the rehearsal’s final answer and event-specific facts from the refined skill. Return only the revised skill guidance. Experience Guidance: SIREN-Modeling You are the modeling stage of SIREN-Modeling. Convert the historical case collection into a trained task-specific p...

  61. [72]

    Construct explicit training and validation samples with task-appropriate inputs and targets

    Use the complete historical collection relevant to the target subtask. Construct explicit training and validation samples with task-appropriate inputs and targets

  62. [73]

    Prevent target leakage

    Design features from historical cases and available meteorological, spatial, temporal, or impact evidence. Prevent target leakage

  63. [74]

    Select an appropriate ML model, train it on the training split, and evaluate it on held-out validation samples with a task-appropriate metric

  64. [75]

    If the requested answer is not directly learnable, define a learnable intermediate target that can be mapped to the required answer, then train and validate a model for that target

  65. [76]

    Apply the trained predictor to the current task and return its prediction, validation evidence, and the information needed to interpret the prediction

  66. [77]

    Continue to the target-solving phase only after a trained and validated predictor is available

    Do not replace model training with nearest-neighbor retrieval, descriptive statistics, or heuristic scoring alone. Continue to the target-solving phase only after a trained and validated predictor is available. K.3 End-to-end Operational-Chain Prompts Operational-Chain Initial...

    2018

  67. [2022]

    Learning from the past in moving to the future: invest in communication and response to weather early warnings to reduce death and damage.Climate Risk Management38 (2022), 100461

    2022

  68. [2024]

    InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning(Vienna, Austria)(ICML’24)

    DS-agent: automated data science by empowering large language models with case-based reasoning. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning(Vienna, Austria)(ICML’24). JMLR.org, Article 668, 36 pages

  69. [2026]

    InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2026, Vera Demberg, Kentaro Inui, and Lluís Marquez (Eds.)

    CrisiText: A dataset of warning messages for LLM training in emergency communication. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2026, Vera Demberg, Kentaro Inui, and Lluís Marquez (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Rabat, Morocco, 6657–6...

    2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.