Predictor selection for downscaling GCM data with LASSO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last 10 years, downscaling techniques, including both dynamical (i.e., the regional climate model) and statistical methods, have been widely developed to provide climate change information at a finer resolution than that provided by global climate models (GCMs). Because one of the major aims of downscaling techniques is to provide the most accurate information possible, data analysts have tried a number of approaches to improve predictor selection, which is one of the most important steps in downscaling techniques. Classical methods such as regression techniques, particularly stepwise regression (SWR), have been employed for downscaling. However, SWR presents some limits, such as deficiencies in dealing with collinearity problems, while also providing overly complex models. Thus, the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) technique, which is a penalized regression method, is presented as another alternative for predictor selection in downscaling GCM data. It may allow for more accurate and clear models that can properly deal with collinearity problems. Therefore, the objective of the current study is to compare the performances of a classical regression method (SWR) and the LASSO technique for predictor selection. A data set from 9 stations located in the southern region of Québec that includes 25 predictors measured over 29 years (from 1961 to 1990) is employed. The results indicate that, due to its computational advantages and its ease of implementation, the LASSO technique performs better than SWR and gives better results according to the determination coefficient and the RMSE as parameters for comparison.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".