Skill Comparisons between Neural Networks and Canonical Correlation Analysis in Predicting the Equatorial Pacific Sea Surface Temperatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the statistical methods used for seasonal climate prediction, canonical correlation analysis (CCA), a more sophisticated version of the linear regression (LR) method, is well established. Recently, neural networks (NN) have been applied to seasonal climate prediction. Unlike CCA and LR, NN is a nonlinear method, which leads to the question whether the nonlinearity of NN brings any extra prediction skill.\nIn this study, an objective comparison between the three methods (CCA, LR, and NN) in predicting the equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures (in regions Niño1+2, Niño3, Niño3.4, and Niño4) was made. The skill of NN was found to be comparable to that of LR and CCA. A cross-validated t test showed that the difference between NN and LR and the difference between NN and CCA were not significant at the 5% level. The lack of significant skill difference between the nonlinear NN method and the linear methods suggests that at the seasonal timescale the equatorial Pacific dynamics is basically linear. Copyright 2000 American Meteorological Society (AMS). Permission\nto use figures, tables, and brief excerpts from this work in scientific and educational\nworks is hereby granted provided that the source is acknowledged. Any use of material in\nthis work that is determined to be “fair use” under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act\nor that satisfies the conditions specified in Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act (17\nUSC §108, as revised by P.L. 94-553) does not require the AMS’s permission.\nRepublication, systematic reproduction, posting in electronic form, such as on a web site\nor in a searchable database, or other uses of this material, except as exempted by the\nabove statement, requires written permission or a license from the AMS. Additional\ndetails are provided in the AMS Copyright Policy, available on the AMS Web site\nlocated at (http://www.ametsoc.org/) or from the AMS at 617-227-2425 or\ncopyright@ametsoc.org.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".