Evaluation of OMI operational standard NO <sub>2</sub> column retrievals using in situ and surface-based NO <sub>2</sub> observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We assess the standard operational nitrogen dioxide (NO2) data product (OMNO2, version 2.1) retrieved from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) onboard NASA's Aura satellite using a combination of aircraft and surface in~situ measurements as well as ground-based column measurements at several locations and a bottom-up NOx emission inventory over the continental US. Despite considerable sampling differences, NO2 vertical column densities from OMI are modestly correlated (r = 0.3–0.8) with in situ measurements of tropospheric NO2 from aircraft, ground-based observations of NO2 columns from MAX-DOAS and Pandora instruments, in situ surface NO2 measurements from photolytic converter instruments, and a bottom-up NOx emission inventory. Overall, OMI retrievals tend to be lower in urban regions and higher in remote areas, but generally agree with other measurements to within ± 20%. No consistent seasonal bias is evident. Contrasting results between different data sets reveal complexities behind NO2 validation. Since validation data sets are scarce and are limited in space and time, validation of the global product is still limited in scope by spatial and temporal coverage and retrieval conditions. Monthly mean vertical NO2 profile shapes from the Global Modeling Initiative (GMI) chemistry-transport model (CTM) used in the OMI retrievals are highly consistent with in situ aircraft measurements, but these measured profiles exhibit considerable day-to-day variation, affecting the retrieved daily NO2 columns by up to 40%. This assessment of OMI tropospheric NO2 columns, together with the comparison of OMI-retrieved and model-simulated NO2 columns, could offer diagnostic evaluation of the model.
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".