Evaluating U.S. East Coast Winter Storms in a Multimodel Ensemble Using EOF and Clustering Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Empirical orthogonal function (EOF) and fuzzy clustering tools were applied to generate and validate scenarios in operational ensemble prediction systems (EPSs) for U.S. East Coast winter storms. The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), and Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC) EPSs were validated in their ability to capture the analysis scenarios for historical East Coast cyclone cases at lead times of 1–9 days. The ECMWF ensemble has the best performance for the medium- to extended-range forecasts. During this time frame, NCEP and CMC did not perform as well, but a combination of the two models helps reduce the missing rate and alleviates the underdispersion. All ensembles are underdispersed at all ranges, with combined ensembles being less underdispersed than the individual EPSs. The number of outside-of-envelope cases increases with lead time. For a majority of the cases beyond the short range, the verifying analysis does not lie within the ensemble mean group of the multimodel ensemble or within the same direction indicated by any of the individual model means, suggesting that all possible scenarios need to be taken into account. Using the EOF patterns to validate the cyclone properties, the NCEP model tends to show less intensity and displacement biases during 1–3-day lead time, while the ECMWF model has the smallest biases during 4–6 days. Nevertheless, the ECMWF forecast position tends to be biased toward the southwest of the other two models and the analysis.
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".