Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3655
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3655
20 Jul 2026
 | 20 Jul 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).

Physics vs. AI inWeather Prediction: Evaluating GraphCast, AIFS, and FuXi against an Observation-Corrected WRF Model for Flash Floods

Haseeb ur Rehman and Félicia N. R. Teferle

Abstract. Data-driven artificial intelligence (AI) weather models are increasingly positioned as alternatives or complements to physics-based numerical weather prediction (NWP) systems, yet systematic model evaluation studies that compare both paradigms under controlled experimental conditions remain limited. Here we present a structured model evaluation framework applying standardised verification metrics to assess a regional WRF configuration against three publicly available AI models – GraphCast, AIFS Single 1.0, and FuXi – over three high-impact flood events in Luxembourg and the Greater Region (2016, 2018, and 2021), comprising 90 simulation days and over 7300 matched forecast-observation pairs. The WRF model employs a three-dimensional variational (3D-VAR) data assimilation scheme ingesting GNSS Zenith Total Delay and conventional observations on a 6-hourly Rapid Update Cycle. All systems are initialised from ERA5 reanalysis to ensure consistent initial conditions. Categorical precipitation scores at the 1 mm threshold and continuous temperature metrics at surface stations serve as verification targets. Data assimilation measurably improves WRF's categorical precipitation skill (Critical Success Index: 0.306 to 0.341) while leaving near-surface temperature largely unchanged, demonstrating the value of the assimilation scheme. AIFS achieves the highest detection rate (POD 0.765) and net categorical skill (CSI 0.370), GraphCast and AIFS reduce temperature RMSE by ~10 % relative to assimilated WRF, and WRF alone reproduces the observed mesoscale precipitation structure of the catastrophic July 2021 flood. The per-event breakdown reveals no skill degradation for AI models on out-of-sample events, suggesting that meteorological regime rather than training-data overlap governs model performance. These results provide a replicable model evaluation methodology for benchmarking emerging data-driven NWP systems against observation-corrected regional models.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Haseeb ur Rehman and Félicia N. R. Teferle

Status: open (until 14 Sep 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Haseeb ur Rehman and Félicia N. R. Teferle

Data sets

Observational rainfall data of the 2021 mid-July flood event in Belgium– Part 2. Radar product RADFLOOD21 E. Goudenhoofdt et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7740059

Model code and software

Python scripts for WRF vs. AI weather model evaluation over Luxembourg flood events H. u. Rehman https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20794937

Video supplement

Evaluating RADAR vs Physics based NWP vs AI Models H. u. Rehman https://doi.org/10.5446/73607

Haseeb ur Rehman and Félicia N. R. Teferle
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 20 Jul 2026
Download
Short summary
Artificial intelligence weather models are now competing with traditional physics-based models for flood forecasting. We tested three such models and one physics-based model on three Luxembourg flood events. The artificial intelligence models detected rain and predicted temperatures better, but only the physics-based model reproduced the deadly 2021 European floods. Their skill held for events outside their training data. Both types together offer the most reliable approach for flood warning.
Share