Optimize Short-Term Rainfall Forecast with Combination of Ensemble Precipitation Nowcasts by Lagrangian Extrapolation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rainfall forecasts currently available in Korea are not sufficiently accurate to be directly applied to the flash flood warning system or urban flood warning system. As the lead time increases, the quality becomes even lower. In order to overcome this problem, this study proposes an ensemble forecasting method. The proposed method considers all available rainfall forecasts as ensemble members at the target time. The ensemble members are combined based on the weighted average method, where the weights are determined by applying the two conditions of the unbiasedness and minimum error variance. The proposed method is tested with McGill Algorithm for Precipitation Nowcasting by Lagrangian Extrapolation (MAPLE) rainfall forecasts for four storm events that occurred during the summers of 2016 and 2017 in Korea. In Korea, rainfall forecasts are generated every 10 min up to six hours, i.e., there are always a total of 36 sets of rainfall forecasts. As a result, it is found that just six ensemble members is sufficient to make the ensemble forecast. Considering additional ensemble members beyond six does not significantly improve the quality of the ensemble forecast. The quality of the ensemble forecast is also found to be better than that of the single forecast, and the weighted average method is found to be better than the simple arithmetic average method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".