Ensemble bias correction of climate simulations: preserving internal variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate simulations often need to be adjusted (i.e., corrected) before any climate change impacts studies. However usual bias correction approaches do not differentiate the bias from the different uncertainties of the climate simulations: scenario uncertainty, model uncertainty and internal variability. In particular, in the case of a multi-run ensemble of simulations (i.e., multiple runs of one model), correcting, as usual, each member separately, would mix up the model biases with its internal variability. In this study, two ensemble bias correction approaches preserving the internal variability of the initial ensemble are proposed. These "Ensemble bias correction" (EnsBC) approaches are assessed and compared to the approach where each ensemble member is corrected separately, using precipitation and temperature series at two locations in North America from a multi-member regional climate ensemble. The preservation of the internal variability is assessed in terms of monthly mean and hourly quantiles. Besides, the preservation of the internal variability in a changing climate is evaluated. Results show that, contrary to the usual approach, the proposed ensemble bias correction approaches adequately preserve the internal variability even in changing climate. Moreover, the climate change signal given by the original ensemble is also conserved by both approaches.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".