The Utility of Convection-Permitting Ensembles for the Prediction of Stationary Convective Bands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examines convection-permitting numerical simulations of four cases of terrain-locked quasi-stationary convective bands over the United Kingdom. For each case, a 2.2-km-grid-length, 12-member ensemble and a 1.5-km-grid-length deterministic forecast are analyzed, each with two different initialization times. Object-based verification is applied to determine whether the simulations capture the structure, location, timing, intensity, and duration of the observed precipitation. These verification diagnostics reveal that the forecast skill varies greatly between the four cases. Although the deterministic and ensemble simulations captured some aspects of the precipitation correctly in each case, they never simultaneously captured all of them satisfactorily. In general, the models predicted banded precipitation accumulations at approximately the correct time and location, but the precipitating structures were more cellular and less persistent than the coherent quasi-stationary bands that were observed. Ensemble simulations from the two different initialization times were not significantly different, which suggests a potential benefit of time-lagging subsequent ensembles to increase ensemble size. The predictive skill of the upstream larger-scale flow conditions and the simulated precipitation on the convection-permitting grids were strongly correlated, which suggests that more accurate forecasts from the parent ensemble should improve the performance of the convection-permitting ensemble nested within it.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".