ClimateBench v2.0: Probabilistic Climate Model Benchmarking
Duncan Watson-ParrisWilla TobinAyta\c{c} Pa\c{c}alManuel SchlundV. BalajiKevin BowmanChris BrethertonPeter M. CaldwellWill ChapmanWilliam D. CollinsGregory S. ElsaesserPierre GentineHelene HewittStephan HoyerRalph KeelingNikolay KoldunovDavid M. LawrenceChristian LessigDaniel J. LuntJ. David NeelinMike PritchardSarah PurkeyGavin SchmidtTapio SchneiderMichael SchulzTiffany ShawIsla R. SimpsonGraeme StephensAneesh C. SubramanianJoao TeixeiraJessica TierneyAndrew I. L. WilliamsLaure ZannaVeronika EyringRose Yu
Oct 2026
Machine LearningClimate Science
Abstract
We present ClimateBench v2, a standardized protocol for evaluating climate models on diagnostics expected to be informative for their skill in projecting mid-century regional temperature and precipitation changes. The protocol is designed to evaluate any physics-based, data-driven, or hybrid climate model on equal footing using a common set of observational and out-of-distribution tests. We define three tiers of evaluation. Tier I establishes physical credibility through entry-ticket tests of energy conservation, coupled (co-)variability, and basic forced responses. Tier II scores models against post-2015 observations of surface temperature, precipitation, radiative fluxes, sea ice, and key modes of variability using fair CRPS as the primary probabilistic score, complemented by distributional and ensemble-consistency diagnostics. Tier III tests out-of-distribution generalization through paleoclimate simulations spanning the Last Interglacial, Last Glacial Maximum, and Mid-Holocene, and through perfect-model experiments in which data-driven models must predict the future climate of existing Earth system models from historical data alone. We reserve all observational data after 2015 for testing, and submissions must include multiple ensemble members to enable probabilistic evaluation. This reservation exploits a new opportunity provided by the decade of observations accumulated since the end of the CMIP6 historical experiment, which constitutes an out-of-sample record of forced climate change (and internal variability) for the current generation of models, and we quantify, in an idealized setting, the information it carries about mid-century warming. We provide the evaluation code, observational reference datasets, and perfect-model training data as an open benchmark to drive measurable progress in climate projection across all modeling approaches.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.
M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 401 citations· ⚡48
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The possibility of inferring high-dimensional data inference in a model that consists of a prior and an auxiliary differentiable constraint given some additional information is considered, thereby allowing a range of potential applications in adapting models to new domains and tasks.
Alexandros Graikos, Esmeralda S. Whitammer, N. Jojic et al.· Neural Information Processin...· 316 citations· ⚡15