A Physically-Motivated Stochastic Model of Tropical Cyclone Dynamic Wind Fields

Matthew LeDuc; William Kleiber

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.31349

A Physically-Motivated Stochastic Model of Tropical Cyclone Dynamic Wind Fields

Matthew LeDuc·William Kleiber

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Tropical cyclones (TCs) pose significant risk to infrastructure and human safety, and the frequency and intensity of large TCs are expected to increase in the future. Quantifying such risk to coastal and inland regions is challenging, largely due to the rare nature of TCs which limits historical data availability. We introduce a new stochastic model of TC wind fields conditional on a small number of physical variables commonly found in synthetic and observed storm track databases. The model consists of a physically-motivated mean trend and an expansion of the residual field into a wavelet frame. We demonstrate the approach on a dataset consisting of historical data for storms impacting the northwest Gulf of Mexico. The model adequately captures asymmetry and nonstationary space-time correlation structures of observed wind fields.

Explore related subjects

stat.AP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Matthew LeDuc, William Kleiber. 2026-10-22. A Physically-Motivated Stochastic Model of Tropical Cyclone Dynamic Wind Fields. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.31349

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Detecting adverse high-order drug combinations from individual case safety reports using computational statistics on disproportionality measures

Adverse drug reactions linked to the intake of drug combinations are a critical concern in pharmacovigilance, particularly as the controlled environment of clinical trials often lacks the scale and diversity to detect rare events involving multiple medications. While spontaneous reporting systems provide the necessary breadth for post-market surveillance, identifying overrepresented drug cocktails within such large-scale data remains a significant computational challenge. This study introduces a computational framework for the detection of drug cocktails associated with adverse events, leveraging disproportionality analysis on individual case safety reports. By integrating the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification, the framework extends beyond individual drugs to capture hierarchical pharmacological relationships, enabling exploration of the space of drug combinations beyond pairwise analysis. To address biases inherent in existing disproportionality measures, we employ a hypergeometric risk metric, while a Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm provides robust empirical p-value estimation for the risk associated with cocktails. A genetic algorithm further facilitates efficient identification of high-risk drug cocktails. A post-treatment step based on penalized logistic regression allows distinguishing true pharmacological interactions from combined individual effects for cocktails of any size. Validation on synthetic and FDA Adverse Event Reporting System data demonstrates the method's efficacy in detecting established drugs and drug combinations associated with myopathy-related adverse events. Implemented as an R package, this framework offers a reproducible, scalable tool for post-market drug safety surveillance.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2026

Can We Trust Evaluations of AI Weather Forecasts for Extremes? How Evaluation Protocols Shape Model Rankings

AI weather models perform competitively with traditional physics-based models at a fraction of the computational cost, and they are thus already used operationally. However, studies reach conflicting conclusions about their ability to forecast extreme weather events, and comparisons across studies are complicated by differing evaluation protocols. We discuss the challenges that arise when comparing AI and physics-based weather forecasts for extreme events. Within a common experimental design, we find that model rankings are highly sensitive to the choice of evaluation metrics: the considered physics-based model tends to perform best when evaluation is restricted to observed extreme events, whereas AI models generally perform better when evaluated using weighted scoring functions. A contingency table analysis shows that AI models underpredict the frequency of extremes, so that their scores are generally dominated by misses, while the physics-based model forecasts extremes more frequently and its scores are dominated by false alarms. Different evaluation metrics penalise these errors differently. Further score decompositions confirm that the score differences arise primarily from miscalibration rather than discrimination ability. This sheds light on the contrasting results in the literature, and highlights the importance of the evaluation metrics used to evaluate AI models.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2026

Causal inference in staggered adoption panels: The correct comparison set depends on your intervention

A powerful data structure for causal inference is staggered adoption: many units are observed over many time periods, during which some units adopt an irreversible treatment at various time points while others remain untreated. Popular methods that apply in this setting include difference in difference, fixed effects, matching, and synthetic control. All of these methods compare the future outcomes of treatment adopters and non-adopters to answer the question: for units who adopt treatment, what outcomes would have been realized if they had remained untreated? We show that this question actually hides two very different causal questions of interest. The first is what would have happened under a momentary intervention to prevent treatment at its factual adoption time. The second is what would have happened to a treated unit under a longitudinal ban preventing treatment at all periods until outcome measurement. We show how to answer each question under conditionally ignorable treatment adoption or under parallel trends. We highlight that common methods cannot answer the second question because this question requires a time-varying comparison set with time-varying weights.

stat.AP↗