MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161543129 · doi:10.1111/rssc.12062

Combining the Bayesian Processor of Output with Bayesian Model Averaging for Reliable Ensemble Forecasting

2014· article· en· W2161543129 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Renaud Marty, Vincent Fortin, Heri Kuswanto, Anne‐Catherine Favre, Éric Parent

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsGDG EnvironnementUniversité Laval
FundersMitacsHydro-QuébecManitoba HydroUniversité Laval
KeywordsBayesian probabilityEnsemble forecastingComputer scienceBayesian inferenceBayesian averageEnsemble learningBayesian statisticsStatistical ensembleSet (abstract data type)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMonte Carlo methodMathematicsCanonical ensemble

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Weather predictions are uncertain by nature. This uncertainty is dynamically assessed by a finite set of trajectories, called ensemble members. Unfortunately, ensemble prediction systems underestimate the uncertainty and thus are unreliable. Statistical approaches are proposed to post-process ensemble forecasts, including Bayesian model averaging and the Bayesian processor of output. We develop a methodology, called the Bayesian processor of ensemble members, from a hierarchical model and combining the two aforementioned frameworks to calibrate ensemble forecasts. The Bayesian processor of ensemble members is compared with Bayesian model averaging and the Bayesian processor of output by calibrating surface temperature forecasting over eight stations in the province of Quebec (Canada). Results show that ensemble forecast skill is improved by the method developed.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.194 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics)Same topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207