Quantile Regression and Clustering Models of Prediction Intervals for Weather Forecasts: A Comparative Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information about forecast uncertainty is vital for optimal decision making in many domains that use weather forecasts. However, it is not available in the immediate output of deterministic numerical weather prediction systems. In this paper, we investigate several learning methods to train and evaluate prediction interval models of weather forecasts. The uncertainty models of weather predictions are trained from a database of historical forecasts/observations. They are developed to investigate prediction intervals of weather forecasts using various quantile regression methods as well as cluster-based probabilistic forecasts using fuzzy methods. To compare and verify probabilistic forecasts, a novel score is developed that accounts for sampling variation effects on forecast verification statistics. The impact of various feature sets and model parameters in forecast uncertainty modeling is also investigated. The results show superior performance of the non-linear quantile regression models in comparison with clustering methods.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it