A new formulation of vector weights in localized particle filters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Particle filters (PFs) constitute a sequential data assimilation method based on the Monte Carlo approximation of Bayesian estimation theory. Standard PFs use scalar weights derived from the likelihood of the approximate posterior probability density functions (PDFs) of observations and use resampling schemes to generate posterior particles. However, the scalar weights approach interferes with the localization algorithm and often results in filter degeneracy. Recently, a localized particle filter (LPF) was developed by extending the scalar weights of PFs to vector weights, which produces various (local) posterior PDFs for different model grids and variables. With a sampling and merging approach in the resampling, a LPF can effectively solve the filter degeneracy problem and offer a practical, efficient algorithm for localization. However, this algorithm assumes the variations in the weights of a state variable of neighbouring grids to be continuous and uses a spatially linear interpolation of PF weights to determine the local weights. In this paper, we first analyse the possible concerns associated with the linear continuity of PF weights. This assumption is found to challenge the theoretical properties of nonlinear and non‐Gaussian variations in weights and alleviate the intrinsic spatial variations of PF weights. On this basis, we propose a new algorithm to produce vector weights for PFs for neighbouring grids. Numerical experiments using the Lorenz 96 model show that our new LPF performs better than the existing LPF algorithm, indicating the advantages and potential applications of this new algorithm of vector weights in the field of data assimilation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".