Accurate subseasonal weather forecasting remains a major challenge due to the inherently chaotic nature of the atmosphere, which limits the predictive skill of conventional models beyond the mid-range horizon (approximately 15 days). In this work, we present Marchuk, a generative latent flow-matching model for global weather forecasting spanning mid-range to subseasonal timescales, with prediction horizons of up to 30 days. Marchuk conditions on current-day weather maps and autoregressively predicts subsequent days' weather maps within the learned latent space. We replace rotary positional encodings (RoPE) with trainable positional embeddings and extend the temporal context window, which together enhance the model's ability to represent and propagate long-range temporal dependencies during latent forecasting. Marchuk offers two key advantages: high computational efficiency and strong predictive performance. Despite its compact architecture of only 276 million parameters, the model achieves performance comparable to LaDCast, a substantially larger model with 1.6 billion parameters, while operating at significantly higher inference speeds. We open-source our inference code and model at: https://v-gen-ai.github.io/Marchuk/
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Marchuk operates in the latent space learned by the DC-AE model introduced in LaDCast. Within this latent space, we train a flow-matching Diffusion Transformer (DiT) to model the conditional distribution of future weather fields given the current state, enabling efficient and accurate probabilistic forecasting.
Figure 2: Marchuk is conditioned on weather maps from the previous K days and is provided with noised weather maps for the subsequent N days as input. The model generates refined forecasts for the next N days, effectively denoising and predicting future weather states.
Figure 3: Marchuk is flow matching DiT model with additional architecture optimizations.
Model
# params
#diffusion steps
Speed, min
LaDCast
375M
10
11
LaDCast
1.6B
10
45
Marchuk
276M
20
7.5
Table 1: Inference Speed. The model performs predictions entirely in the latent space for a 30-day forecast horizon with an ensemble size of 50, executed on an H100 GPU. Reported measurements account only for the forecasting component, excluding encoding / decoding.
Method
UW500
T500
G500
SH500 , 10−3
SLP
10m-UW
10m-VW
T2M
LaDCast, 375M
8.14
3.07
784.21
0.832
690.74
3.81
3.93
2.59
LaDCast, 1.6B
8.08
3.04
774.18
0.796
684.29
3.77
3.91
2.54
Marchuk, 276M
8.15
3.08
785.91
0.803
697.89
3.80
3.95
2.52
Climatology
8.55
3.18
810.57
0.857
711.21
3.96
4.02
2.66
Table 2: Comparison to LaDCast. We report RMSE metrics at 15-day forecast horizons. The evaluated variables include atmospheric fields – UW500 (u-component of wind at 500 hPa), T500 (temperature at 500 hPa), G500 (geopotential at 500 hPa), and SH500 (specific humidity at 500 hPa) – as well as surface fields – SLP (sea level pressure), 10m-UW and 10m-VW (u- and v-components of wind at 10 meters), and T2M (temperature at 2 meters).
Method
UW500
T500
G500
SH500 , 10−3
SLP
10m-UW
10m-VW
T2M
LaDCast, 375M
8.47
3.26
840.58
0.883
727.40
3.93
4.01
2.80
LaDCast, 1.6B
8.40
3.17
815.53
0.825
713.08
3.87
3.97
2.66
Marchuk, 276M
8.40
3.16
809.15
0.836
715.79
3.86
3.99
2.64
Climatology
8.55
3.18
810.57
0.857
711.21
3.96
4.02
2.66
Table 3: Comparison to LaDCast. We report RMSE metrics at 30-day forecast horizons. The evaluated variables include atmospheric fields – UW500 (u-component of wind at 500 hPa), T500 (temperature at 500 hPa), G500 (geopotential at 500 hPa), and SH500 (specific humidity at 500 hPa) – as well as surface fields – SLP (sea level pressure), 10m-UW and 10m-VW (u- and v-components of wind at 10 meters), and T2M (temperature at 2 meters).
Figure 4: RMSE comparison. We evaluate LaDCast and Marchuk on the WeatherBench-2 benchmark over a 30-day prediction horizon. The atmospheric variables include the u-component of wind, temperature, geopotential, and specific humidity at 500, 750, and 850 hPa levels. Surface variables include mean sea level pressure, 10-meter wind u- and v-components, and temperature at 2 meters. Marchuk outperforms the small LaDCast model and achieves comparable performance to the large LaDCast model. Beyond approximately 30 days, both models’ forecasts converge toward climatology, indicating that extending the prediction horizon further provides limited practical value.
Figure 5: CRPS Ensemble Metrics Comparison. Figure illustrates the evolution of CRPS over a 30-day forecast horizon. The first row presents results for atmospheric variables at the 500 hPa level, including the u-component of wind, temperature, geopotential, and specific humidity. The second row shows CRPS for surface variables, namely mean sea level pressure, the 10-meter u-component of wind, 2-meter temperature, and total accumulated precipitation over 6 hours.
Method
UW500
T500
G500
SH500 , 10−3
SLP
10m-UW
T2M
TP-6h, 10−3
LaDCast, 375M
4.23
1.49
354.07
0.394
305.53
1.85
1.13
0.520
LaDCast, 1.6B
4.19
1.45
338.43
0.377
299.99
1.82
1.09
0.515
Marchuk, 276M
4.26
1.47
343.34
0.385
310.33
1.85
1.10
0.519
Table 4: Comparison to LaDCast. We report CRPS metrics at 15-day forecast horizons. The evaluated variables include atmospheric fields – UW500 (u-component of wind at 500 hPa), T500 (temperature at 500 hPa), G500 (geopotential at 500 hPa), and SH500 (specific humidity at 500 hPa) – and surface fields – SLP (sea level pressure), 10m-UW (u-component of wind at 10 meters), T2M (temperature at 2 meters), and TP-6h (total accumulated precipitation over the last 6 hours).
Method
UW500
T500
G500
SH500 , 10−3
SLP
10m-UW
T2M
TP-6h, 10−3
LaDCast, 375M
4.43
1.64
398.00
0.419
325.58
1.92
1.24
0.530
LaDCast, 1.6B
4.38
1.53
364.10
0.393
316.72
1.88
1.15
0.522
Marchuk, 276M
4.42
1.53
354.93
0.401
318.99
1.89
1.16
0.527
Table 5: Comparison to LaDCast. We report CRPS metrics at 30-day forecast horizons. The evaluated variables include atmospheric fields – UW500 (u-component of wind at 500 hPa), T500 (temperature at 500 hPa), G500 (geopotential at 500 hPa), and SH500 (specific humidity at 500 hPa) – and surface fields – SLP (sea level pressure), 10m-UW (u-component of wind at 10 meters), T2M (temperature at 2 meters), and TP-6h (total accumulated precipitation over the last 6 hours).
Figure 6: Extreme-Event Forecasting Ability. We evaluate the model’s capability to predict extreme events by analyzing the probability of a cold-weather event preceding the Moscow frost day (midnight, January 26, 2026). Specifically, we plot the probability as a function of lead time, defined as the number of days before the event. The probability is computed as the fraction of ensemble members predicting temperatures within the range of −22∘C±3∘C . This analysis provides insight into the model’s ability to capture the likelihood of extreme temperature events over extended forecast horizons.
Config
UW500
T500
G500
SH500 , 10−3
SLP
10m-UW
10m-VW
T2M
RoPE 3D
8.63
3.23
829.83
0.851
730.81
3.98
4.11
2.66
GeoRoPE
8.53
3.20
821.28
0.848
729.82
3.97
4.09
2.67
RoPE 1D + trainable 2D
8.42
3.18
808.11
0.841
719.79
3.94
4.05
2.65
Table 6: Evaluation of Marchuk with different positional encoding schemes: RoPE3D, GeoRoPE, and RoPE 1D with trainable spatial embeddings. The hybrid configuration achieves the best performance in terms of RMSE over a 15-day forecast horizon.
Config
UW500
T500
G500
SH500 , 10−3
SLP
10m-UW
10m-VW
T2M
6 hours
8.61
3.21
820.05
0.864
727.83
4.02
4.10
2.68
12 hours
8.54
3.15
806.22
0.842
714.67
3.93
4.08
2.63
24 hours
8.51
3.17
809.98
0.834
715.94
3.95
4.08
2.66
48 hours
8.39
3.14
804.05
0.828
713.98
3.93
4.08
2.61
Table 7: Effect of fixed-window training on model performance. Increasing the context window length consistently improves RMSE across all evaluated variables.
Config
UW500
T500
G500
SH500 , 10−3
SLP
10m-UW
10m-VW
T2M
1 hour
8.60
3.20
829.13
0.847
733.35
3.98
4.10
2.72
6 hours
8.49
3.14
814.46
0.834
717.28
3.94
4.05
2.65
12 hours
8.65
3.32
851.86
0.858
744.54
4.02
4.21
2.75
Table 8: Effect of temporal skip interval on model performance. Training with different timestep intervals (1, 6, and 12 hours) shows that a 6-hour interval achieves the best RMSE performance, balancing temporal resolution and autoregressive efficiency.
Config
UW500
T500
G500
SH500 , 10−3
SLP
10m-UW
10m-VW
T2M
1 day
8.43
3.15
808.56
0.827
717.27
3.92
4.06
2.68
2 days
8.34
3.13
800.60
0.816
715.86
3.92
4.04
2.59
4 days
8.31
3.15
815.62
0.816
728.41
3.89
4.08
2.57
8 days
8.53
3.20
826.77
0.817
741.44
3.93
4.11
2.65
Table 9: Impact of inference configuration on model performance. Varying the input context length from 1 to 8 days shows that intermediate horizons (2-4 days) yield the best RMSE performance.
Config
UW500
T500
G500
SH500 , 10−3
SLP
10m-UW
10m-VW
T2M
w/o timestamp
8.39
3.14
804.05
0.828
713.98
3.93
4.08
2.61
w timestamp
8.39
3.14
799.18
0.827
708.66
3.92
4.05
2.59
Table 10: Ablation study on the effect of including timestamp information in Cross-Attention. Incorporating timestamp as a conditioning signal improves RMSE across all evaluated variables.
Config
UW500
T500
G500
SH500 , 10−3
SLP
10m-UW
10m-VW
T2M
12 hours
8.50
3.17
822.71
0.838
739.36
4.00
4.12
2.62
1 day
8.42
3.18
811.02
0.839
727.00
3.96
4.09
2.65
2 days
8.51
3.20
817.01
0.835
715.08
3.96
4.09
2.65
Table 11: Ablation study on input context length. Reducing the context to 4 points (1 day of weather maps) maintains predictive accuracy while improving computational efficiency.
Figure 7: ACC score. We evaluate model performance using ACC across several weather variables. The results, illustrated in the figure, show that our model exhibits the smallest decline in ACC over time compared to both LaDCast models.
Figure 8: The CRPS Skill score evaluates how closely ensemble predictions align with the observed outcomes on average. Our model outperforms both the small and large LaDCast variants, demonstrating improved probabilistic forecasting accuracy.
Figure 9: CRPS Spread. The CRPS spread reflects the diversity among ensemble members by measuring pairwise differences within the ensemble. Our model exhibits lower spread compared to LaDCast, indicating reduced ensemble diversity. This effect can be attributed to stronger conditioning: while LaDCast conditions on a single weather map, Marchuk conditions on the four most recent maps, leading to more constrained and less diverse predictions.
Weather forecasting predicts future atmospheric conditions, from local storms to global patterns, using physical models, observations, and machine learning.
Existing machine-learning weather forecasting models rely on predetermined and fixed autoregressive timesteps. The choice of model timestep involves a fundamental trade-off: shorter timesteps (e.g. 1 to 6 hours) finely resolve atmospheric dynamics within the diurnal cycle but increase error accumulation for a given forecast horizon, while longer timesteps (e.g. 24 hours) reduce error accumulation but limit the usability of short-range forecasts where sub-daily predictability is high. In this work, we present GEM-3, a probabilistic global weather model that addresses this trade-off through explicit multi-timestep inference. With a single set of trained weights, the model timestep can be configured at inference time to balance predictability and usability across a broad forecast horizon. Additionally, we find that mixed-timestep training consistently improves rollout stability relative to timestep-specialist models. Under the hood, GEM-3 is a lightweight neighborhood-attention transformer with ~134M parameters on an equirectangular grid with a number of architectural advancements beyond its predecessor GEM-2. The result is a practical forecasting system that couples near-SOTA medium-range probabilistic skill, stable extended-range rollouts, efficient training and inference, and decision-relevant diagnostics.
Data-driven models now rival numerical weather prediction in the medium range, but extending them to sub-seasonal lead times raises challenges absent at shorter horizons. Errors accumulate over long autoregressive rollouts, systematic biases grow with lead time, and several years of data must be held out for independent verification, even though machine-learning models otherwise benefit from longer training records. To address these challenges, we adapt ECMWF's AIFS-CRPS medium-range model. AIFS-SUBS adopts a 24h autoregressive time step to reduce error accumulation, adds stratospheric levels and top-of-atmosphere thermal radiation as predictors, and reserves 2007--2011 as an independent verification window. We evaluate two config-durations: AIFS-SUBS, fine-tuned on operational analyses, and AIFS-SUBS-ERA5, trained on ERA5 alone. Across weeks 2--6, AIFS-SUBS matches the operational Integrated Forecasting System (IFS) in probabilistic skill while reducing systematic biases. For the convective (OLR) component of the Madden--Julian Oscillation (MJO), AIFS-SUBS extends skilful forecasts (correlation > 0.5) by eight days relative to the IFS, while matching or exceeding the IFS for the full multivariate RMM index. AIFS-SUBS also reproduces the observed MJO modulation of tropical cyclone activity comparably. Stratospheric skill is particularly strong with AIFS-SUBS reproducing sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) frequency and surface impact. In the AI Weather Quest, AIFS-SUBS-ERA5 attains a variable-averaged ranked probability skill score slightly ahead of the IFS at weeks 3 and 4. At inference, AIFS-SUBS uses about 200 times less energy than the IFS, opening the door to much larger real-time ensembles. AIFS-SUBS is ECMWF's first machine-learning model targeted at sub-seasonal time-scales.
Jakob Schloer, Steffen Tietsche, Christopher D. Roberts +6
1European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)
The subseasonal-to-seasonal (S2S) timescale, roughly from two weeks to two months ahead, is a critical forecast window for sectors such as agriculture, energy, and water management. Yet, it is widely known as the `predictability desert'. Recent AI weather models excel up to two weeks ahead but deteriorate beyond, largely because they are trained to predict fine-scale details that are neither predictable nor essential at S2S timescales. We argue that a more physically grounded objective is to forecast only the slowly varying components that remain predictable. Computer vision reached the same conclusion with the Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture (JEPA), which predicts in latent space, discarding unpredictable details. In this work, we introduce S2S-JEPA, which brings the JEPA paradigm to S2S forecasting. It is tailored to this task through design elements from state-of-the-art AI weather models. S2S-JEPA achieves comparable skill to the gold-standard ECMWF physics-based ensemble and surpasses it on multiple metrics at weeks 5 to 6.
Chenyu Dong, Gianmarco Mengaldo
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Design and Engineering, National University of Singapore, 9 Engineering Drive 1, 117575, Singapore.