Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many ensemble data assimilation (DA) approaches suffer from the so-called inbreeding problem. As a consequence, there is an excessive reduction in ensemble spread by the DA procedure, causing the analysis ensemble spread to systematically underestimate the uncertainty of the ensemble mean analysis. The stochastic EnKF used for operational NWP in Canada largely avoids this problem by applying cross validation, that is, using an independent subset of ensemble members for updating each member. The goal of the present study is to evaluate two new variations of the local ensemble transform Kalman filter (LETKF) that also incorporate cross validation. In idealized numerical experiments with Gaussian-distributed background ensembles, the two new LETKF approaches are shown to produce reliable analysis ensembles such that the ensemble spread closely matches the uncertainty of the ensemble mean, without any ensemble inflation. In ensemble DA experiments with highly nonlinear idealized forecast models, the deterministic version of the LETKF with cross validation quickly diverges, but the stochastic version produces better results, nearly identical to the stochastic EnKF with cross validation. In the context of a regional NWP system, ensemble DA experiments are performed with the two new LETKF-based approaches with cross validation, the standard LETKF, and the stochastic EnKF. All approaches with cross validation produce similar ensemble spread at the first analysis time, though the amplitude of the changes to the individual members is larger with the stochastic approaches. Over the 10-day period of the experiments, the fit of the ensemble mean background state to radiosonde observations is statistically indistinguishable for all approaches evaluated.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".