论文标题
耀斑预测方法的比较。 iv。评估连续日预测模式
A Comparison of Flare Forecasting Methods. IV. Evaluating Consecutive-Day Forecasting Patterns
论文作者
论文摘要
对成功的耀斑预测的关键挑战是预测“耀斑奎特”和“耀斑活跃”之间过渡的时期。在本系列的早期研究的基础上(Barnes等人,2016; Leka等人,2019a,b),其中我们描述了耀斑预测比较工作的方法,细节和结果,我们在这里重点介绍了在多天期间的预测结果(成功和失败)的模式。开发了一项新的分析,以评估预测的成功,这是在捕捉耀斑活跃时期的第一个事件的背景下,并且可以正确预测耀斑活动的下降。我们以图形和定量的方式证明了这些评估方法,因为它们提供了快速的比较评估和详细分析的选项。对于2016-2017的测试间隔,我们确定了三个不同事件历史(即事件/事件,无活动/事件和事件/无事件)的为期两天的二分法预测结果的相对频率分布,并使用它来突出预测方法之间的性能差异。在所有预测方法中都确定了趋势,即即使燃烧活动正在过渡,第1天的高/低预测概率在第2天仍保持高/低。对于M级和较大的耀斑,我们发现在计算预测中明确包括持久性或先前的耀斑历史,有助于提高整体预测性能。还发现,使用磁/现代数据会导致捕获第一事件/第一事件过渡方面的改善。最后,由于缺乏远离地球线的仪器的观察结果,在测试间隔中有15%的主要(即M级或更高)在测试间隔内有效遗漏了。
A crucial challenge to successful flare prediction is forecasting periods that transition between "flare-quiet" and "flare-active". Building on earlier studies in this series (Barnes et al. 2016; Leka et al. 2019a,b) in which we describe methodology, details, and results of flare forecasting comparison efforts, we focus here on patterns of forecast outcomes (success and failure) over multi-day periods. A novel analysis is developed to evaluate forecasting success in the context of catching the first event of flare-active periods, and conversely, of correctly predicting declining flare activity. We demonstrate these evaluation methods graphically and quantitatively as they provide both quick comparative evaluations and options for detailed analysis. For the testing interval 2016-2017, we determine the relative frequency distribution of two-day dichotomous forecast outcomes for three different event histories (i.e., event/event, no-event/event and event/no-event), and use it to highlight performance differences between forecasting methods. A trend is identified across all forecasting methods that a high/low forecast probability on day-1 remains high/low on day-2 even though flaring activity is transitioning. For M-class and larger flares, we find that explicitly including persistence or prior flare history in computing forecasts helps to improve overall forecast performance. It is also found that using magnetic/modern data leads to improvement in catching the first-event/first-no-event transitions. Finally, 15% of major (i.e., M-class or above) flare days over the testing interval were effectively missed due to a lack of observations from instruments away from the Earth-Sun line.