MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150052759 · doi:10.1175/2007mwr2323.1

Sampling Errors in Ensemble Kalman Filtering. Part I: Theory

2008· article· en· W2150052759 on OpenAlexafffund
William Sacher, Peter Bartello

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Weather Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsEnsemble Kalman filterKalman filterCovarianceCovariance matrixFast Kalman filterCovariance intersectionComputer scienceContext (archaeology)MathematicsInvariant extended Kalman filterExtended Kalman filterStatisticsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper discusses the quality of the analysis given by the ensemble Kalman filter in a perfect model context when ensemble sizes are limited. The overall goal is to improve the theoretical understanding of the problem of systematic errors in the analysis variance due to the limited size of the ensemble, as well as the potential of the so-called double-ensemble Kalman filter, covariance inflation, and randomly perturbed analysis techniques to produce a stable analysis—that is to say, one not subject to filter divergence. This is achieved by expressing the error of the ensemble mean and the analysis error covariance matrix in terms of the sampling noise in the background error covariance matrix (owing to the finite ensemble estimation) and by comparing these errors for all methods. Theoretical predictions are confirmed with a simple scalar test case. In light of the analytical results obtained, the expression of the optimal covariance inflation factor is proposed in terms of the limited ensemble size and the Kalman gain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations77
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Weather ReviewSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207