Combining Global Climate Models Using Graph Cuts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Global Climate Models are the main tools for climate projections. Since many models exist, it is common to use Multi-Model Ensembles to reduce biases and assess uncertainties in climate projections. Several approaches have been proposed to combine individual models and extract a robust signal from an ensemble. Among them, the Multi-Model Mean (MMM) is the most commonly used. Based on the assumption that the models are centered around the truth, it consists in averaging the ensemble, with the possibility of using equal weights for all models or to adjust weights to favor some models. In this paper, we propose a new alternative to reconstruct multi-decadal means of climate variables from a Multi-Model Ensemble, where the local performance of the models is taken into account. This is in contrast with MMM where a model has the same weight for all locations. Our approach is based on a computer vision method called graph cuts and consists in selecting for each grid point the most appropriate model, while at the same time considering the overall spatial consistency of the resulting field. The performance of the graph cuts approach is assessed based on two experiments: one where the ERA5 reanalyses are considered as the reference, and another involving a perfect model experiment where each model is in turn considered as the reference. We show that the graph cuts approach generally results in lower biases than other model combination approaches such as MMM, while at the same time preserving a similar level of spatial continuity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".