the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Warnings based on risk matrices: a coherent framework with consistent evaluation
Abstract. Risk matrices are widely used across a range of fields and have found increasing utility in warning decision practices globally. However, their application in this context presents challenges, which range from potentially perverse warning outcomes to a lack of objective verification (i.e., evaluation) methods. This paper introduces a coherent framework for generating multi-level warnings from risk matrices to address these challenges. The proposed framework is general, is based on probabilistic forecasts of hazard severity or impact and is compatible with the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP). Moreover, it includes a family of consistent scoring functions for objectively evaluating the predictive performance of risk matrix assessments and the warnings they produce. These scoring functions enable the ranking of forecasters or warning systems and the tracking of system improvements by rewarding accurate probabilistic forecasts and compliance with warning service directives. A synthetic experiment demonstrates the efficacy of these scoring functions, while the framework is illustrated through warnings for heavy rainfall based on operational ensemble prediction system forecasts for Tropical Cyclone Jasper (Queensland, Australia, 2023). This work establishes a robust foundation for enhancing the reliability and verifiability of risk-based warning systems.
- Preprint
(803 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 02 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-323', Samar Momin, 12 Apr 2025
reply
General Comments:
This paper introduces a mathematically rigorous framework for issuing and evaluating multi-level warnings derived from risk matrices. It addresses critical weaknesses in current risk matrix-based warning systems, such as inconsistency, lack of objectivity, and absence of formal verification mechanisms. The framework is probabilistic, hazard-agnostic, and compatible with the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), making it widely applicable in disaster risk management.
The manuscript is technically strong, well-written, and well-structured. It clearly explains the conceptual foundation and mathematical formulation, with practical examples and synthetic experiments demonstrating real-world and theoretical robustness, and provides an open-source Python-based code.
Strengths:
1. Innovation and Relevance:
The paper presents a coherent warning framework that resolves known inconsistencies in traditional risk matrices. The risk matrix score and warning score are introduced as consistent, theoretically grounded methods for evaluation.
2. Operational Usability:
The framework is flexible and compatible with real-time systems (e.g., CAP-based alerting), and can be applied across hazards and domains.
3. Synthetic Experiment and Case Study:
The use of six distinct synthetic forecasters in a probabilistic setup illustrates the scoring method’s discriminative power. The Tropical Cyclone Jasper case study shows practical feasibility in a high-impact, real-world scenario.
4. Clarity and Depth:
The manuscript does an excellent job explaining the logic behind severity-certainty structuring, lead-time sensitivity, and score weighting using realistic examples.
5. Open-Source Tooling:
Providing a Python implementation in the scores package adds major value and supports reproducibility.
Specific Comments:
1. Terminology and Framing:
While the mathematical rigor is a strength, early sections could benefit from briefly reinforcing why these inconsistencies in risk matrices matter for public safety and policy credibility. Consider simplifying the initial explanation of “forecast directive” and “warning directive” for non-technical readers.
2. Comparison with Existing Systems:
The distinction from the UK Met Office (UKMO) and other operational frameworks is clear, but it might help to include a side-by-side visual comparison in an appendix or supplementary material (if possible).
3. Evaluation Weights:
The method for deriving weights from stakeholder input (e.g., community consultation on false alarm vs. miss costs) is strong. However, a brief reflection on the subjectivity and variability in such consultations would add depth.
4. Scalability to Multi-Hazard Systems:
Although the framework is hazard-agnostic, a discussion on how it could scale or adapt to multi-hazard interactions (e.g., flood + wind) would strengthen its applicability. That being said, it would be helpful to shed light on this framework toward earthquake hazards as they are growing in frequency (if possible).
5. Lead Time Scaling:
The use of distinct matrices for LONG-, MID-, and SHORT-range phases is excellent. It would be helpful to mention how this could be dynamically updated as new ensemble data arrives.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-323-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-323', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Apr 2025
reply
This paper proposes a probabilistic framework for multi-level warnings based on risk matrices and illustrates an example for Tropical Cyclone Jasper. The paper is well-organized, and well-written. Also, it publishes open-source codes and all the mathematical algorithms in the appendix, make the paper clear and concise.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-323-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-323', Anonymous Referee #3, 20 Apr 2025
reply
This is an excellent paper, which outlines an innovative method for presentation and evaluation of warning predictions. It is strongly based on theoretical concepts but also provides a methodology that is intuitive. I highly recommend publication in EGUsphere.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-323-RC3
Data sets
Data and code for risk matrix score paper Robert J. Taggart http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14668723
Model code and software
Data and code for risk matrix score paper Robert J. Taggart http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14668723
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
65 | 24 | 6 | 95 | 5 | 6 |
- HTML: 65
- PDF: 24
- XML: 6
- Total: 95
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 43 | 31 |
undefined | 2 | 15 | 11 |
China | 3 | 14 | 10 |
Australia | 4 | 8 | 5 |
France | 5 | 7 | 5 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 43