Comparative Analysis of the Local Observation-Based (LOB) Method and the Nonparametric Regression-Based Method for Gridded Bias Correction in Mesoscale Weather Forecasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The comparative analysis of three methods for objective grid-based bias removal in mesoscale numerical weather prediction models is considered. The first technique is the local observation-based (LOB) method that extends further the approaches of several recent studies and is focused on utilizing the information obtained from meteorological stations or neighbor grid points in the proximity of a site of interest. The bias at a site of interest might then be considered as a spatiotemporal function of the weighted information on the past biases observed in the cluster of neighbors during a certain time window. The second method is an extension of model output statistics (MOS), combining several modern multiple regression techniques such as the classification and regression trees (CARTs) and the alternative conditional expectation (ACE) and, therefore, is named the CART–ACE method. The CART–ACE method allows representing possible nonlinear aspects of the bias in a parsimonious linearized statistical model. Finally, the third considered method is a natural combination of the LOB and CART–ACE methods in which the information provided by the LOB method is interpreted as an extra predictor in the regression model of the CART–ACE method. The proposed methods are illustrated by a case study of an observation-based verification and bias correction of fifth-generation Pennsylvania State University–National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model (MM5) 48-h surface temperature, that is, 2-m temperature, forecasts over the Pacific Northwest.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".