Yes / A workshop was recently held at Nagoya University (31 October – 02 November 2017), sponsored by the Center for International Collaborative Research, at the Institute for Space-Earth Environmental Research, Nagoya University, Japan, to quantitatively compare the performance of today’s operational solar flare forecasting facilities. Building upon Paper I of this series (Barnes et al. 2016), in Paper II (Leka et al. 2019) we described the participating methods for this latest comparison effort, the evaluation methodology, and presented quantitative comparisons. In this paper we focus on the behavior and performance of the methods when evaluated in the context of broad implementation differences. Acknowledging the short testing interval available and the small number of methods available, we do find that forecast performance: 1) appears to improve by including persistence or prior flare activity, region evolution, and a human “forecaster in the loop”; 2) is hurt by restricting data to disk-center observations; 3) may benefit from long-term statistics, but mostly when then combined with modern data sources and statistical approaches. These trends are arguably weak and must be viewed with numerous caveats, as discussed both here and in Paper II. Following this present work, we present in Paper IV a novel analysis method to evaluate temporal patterns of forecasting errors of both types (i.e., misses and false alarms; Park et al. 2019). Hence, most importantly, with this series of papers we demonstrate the techniques for facilitating comparisons in the interest of establishing performance-positive methodologies.

Yes / Solar flares produce radiation which can have an almost immediate effect on the near-Earth environ- ment, making it crucial to forecast flares in order to mitigate their negative effects. The number of published approaches to flare forecasting using photospheric magnetic field observations has prolifer- ated, with varying claims about how well each works. Because of the different analysis techniques and data sets used, it is essentially impossible to compare the results from the literature. This problem is exacerbated by the low event rates of large solar flares. The challenges of forecasting rare events have long been recognized in the meteorology community, but have yet to be fully acknowledged by the space weather community. During the interagency workshop on “all clear” forecasts held in Boulder, CO in 2009, the performance of a number of existing algorithms was compared on common data sets, specifically line-of-sight magnetic field and continuum intensity images from MDI, with consistent definitions of what constitutes an event. We demonstrate the importance of making such systematic comparisons, and of using standard verification statistics to determine what constitutes a good prediction scheme. When a comparison was made in this fashion, no one method clearly outperformed all others, which may in part be due to the strong correlations among the parameters used by different methods to characterize an active region. For M-class flares and above, the set of methods tends towards a weakly positive skill score (as measured with several distinct metrics), with no participating method proving substantially better than climatological forecasts. / This work is the outcome of many collaborative and cooperative efforts. The 2009 “Forecasting the All-Clear” Workshop in Boulder, CO was sponsored by NASA/Johnson Space Flight Center’s Space Radiation Analysis Group, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the NOAA/Space Weather Prediction Center, with additional travel support for participating scientists from NASA LWS TRT NNH09CE72C to NWRA. The authors thank the participants of that workshop, in particular Drs. Neal Zapp, Dan Fry, Doug Biesecker, for the informative discussions during those three crazy days, and NCAR’s Susan Baltuch and NWRA’s Janet Biggs for organizational prowess. Workshop preparation and analysis support was provided for GB, KDL by NASA LWS TRT NNH09CE72C, and NASA Heliophysics GI NNH12CG10C. PAH and DSB received funding from the European Space Agency PRODEX Programme, while DSB and MKG also received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and in- novation programme under grant agreement No. 640216 (FLARECAST project). MKG also acknowledges research performed under the A-EFFort project and subsequent service implementation, supported under ESA Contract number 4000111994/14/D/MPR. YY was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants ATM 09-36665, ATM 07-16950, ATM-0745744 and by NASA under grants NNX0-7AH78G, NNXO-8AQ90G. YY owes his deepest gratitude to his advisers Prof. Frank Y. Shih, Prof. Haimin Wang and Prof. Ju Jing for long discussions, for reading previous drafts of his work and providing many valuable comments that improved the presentation and contents of this work. JMA was supported by NSF Career Grant AGS-1255024 and by a NMSU Vice President for Research Interdisciplinary Research Grant.

Yes / Solar flares are extremely energetic phenomena in our Solar System. Their impulsive, often drastic radiative increases, in particular at short wavelengths, bring immediate impacts that motivate solar physics and space weather research to understand solar flares to the point of being able to forecast them. As data and algorithms improve dramatically, questions must be asked concerning how well the forecasting performs; crucially, we must ask how to rigorously measure performance in order to critically gauge any improvements. Building upon earlier-developed methodology (Barnes et al. 2016, Paper I), international representatives of regional warning centers and research facilities assembled in 2017 at the Institute for Space-Earth Environmental Research, Nagoya University, Japan to – for the first time – directly compare the performance of operational solar flare forecasting methods. Multiple quantitative evaluation metrics are employed, with focus and discussion on evaluation methodologies given the restrictions of operational forecasting. Numerous methods performed consistently above the “no skill” level, although which method scored top marks is decisively a function of flare event definition and the metric used; there was no single winner. Following in this paper series we ask why the performances differ by examining implementation details (Leka et al. 2019, Paper III), and then we present a novel analysis method to evaluate temporal patterns of forecasting errors in (Park et al. 2019, Paper IV). With these works, this team presents a well-defined and robust methodology for evaluating solar flare forecasting methods in both research and operational frameworks, and today’s performance benchmarks against which improvements and new methods may be compared.