Characterizing and avoiding physical inconsistency generated by the application of univariate quantile mapping on daily minimum and maximum temperatures over Hudson Bay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Quantile mapping (QM) is a technique often used for statistical post‐processing (SPP) of climate model simulations, in order to adjust their biases relative to a selected reference product and/or to downscale their resolution. However, when QM is applied in univariate mode, there is a risk of generating other problems, like intervariable physical inconsistency (PI). Here, such a risk is investigated with daily temperature minimum (Tmin) and maximum (Tmax), for which the relationship Tmin > Tmax would be inconsistent with the definition of the variables. QM is applied to an ensemble of 78 daily CMIP5 simulations over Hudson Bay for the application period 1979–2100, with Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) selected as the reference product during the calibration period 1979–2010. This study's specific objectives are as follows: to investigate the conditions under which PI situations are generated; to test whether PI may be prevented simply by tuning some of the QM technique's numerical choices; and to compare the suitability of alternative approaches that hinder PI by design. Primary results suggest that PI situations appear preferentially for small values of the initial (simulated) diurnal temperature range (DTR), but the differential between the respective biases of Tmin and Tmax also plays an important role; one cannot completely prevent the generation of PI simply by adjusting QM parameters and options, but forcing preservation of the simulated long‐term trends generates fewer PI situations; for avoiding PI between Tmin and Tmax, the present study supports a previous recommendation to directly post‐process Tmax and DTR before deducing Tmin.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".