MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220912739 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-10519

Adaptive Bias Correction for Improved Subseasonal Forecasting

2022· preprint· en· W4220912739 on OpenAlexaff
Soukayna Mouatadid, Paulo Orenstein, Genevieve Flaspohler, Miruna Oprescu, Judah Cohen, Franklyn Wang, Sean Knight, Gosha Geogdzhayev, Sam Levang, Ernest Fraenkel, Lester Mackey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictabilityEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyGlobal Forecast SystemPrecipitationClimatologyWeather forecastingClimate modelNumerical weather predictionComputer scienceClimate changeMathematicsStatisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improving our ability to forecast the weather and climate is of interest to all sectors of the economy and government agencies from the local to the national level. In fact, weather forecasts 0-10 days ahead and climate forecasts seasons to decades ahead are currently used operationally in decision-making, and the accuracy and reliability of these forecasts has improved consistently in recent decades. However, many critical applications require subseasonal forecasts with lead times in between these two timescales. Subseasonal forecasting—predicting temperature and precipitation 2-6 weeks ahead—is indeed critical for effective water allocation, wildfire management, and drought and flood mitigation. Yet, accurate forecasts for the subseasonal regime are still lacking due to the chaotic nature of weather. While short-term forecasting accuracy is largely sustained by physics-based dynamical models, these deterministic methods have limited subseasonal accuracy due to chaos. Indeed, subseasonal forecasting has long been considered a “predictability desert” due to its complex dependence on both local weather and global climate variables. Nevertheless, recent large-scale research efforts have advanced the subseasonal capabilities of operational physics-based models, while parallel efforts have demonstrated the value of machine learning and deep learning methods in improving subseasonal forecasting. To counter the systematic errors of dynamical models at longer lead times, we introduce an adaptive bias correction (ABC) method that combines state-of-the-art dynamical forecasts with observations using machine learning. We evaluate our adaptive bias correction method in the contiguous U.S. over the years 2011-2020 and demonstrate consistent improvement over standard meteorological baselines, state-of-the-art learning models, and the leading subseasonal dynamical models, as measured by root mean squared error and uncentered anomaly correlation skill. When applied to the United States’ operational climate forecast system (CFSv2), ABC improves temperature forecasting skill by 20-47% and precipitation forecasting skill by 200-350%. When applied to the leading subseasonal model from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), ABC improves temperature forecasting skill by 8-38% and precipitation forecasting skill by 40-80%. Overall, we find that de-biasing dynamical forecasts with our learned adaptive bias correction method yields an effective and computationally inexpensive strategy for generating improved subseasonal forecasts and building the next generation of subseasonal forecasting benchmarks. To facilitate future subseasonal benchmarking and development, we release our model code through the subseasonal_toolkit Python package and our routinely updated SubseasonalClimateUSA dataset through the subseasonal_data Python package.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.109 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207