The Prediction of Supercooled Large Drops by a Microphysics and a Machine Learning Model for the ICICLE Field Campaign
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The prediction of supercooled large drops (SLD) from the Thompson–Eidhammer (TE) microphysics scheme—run as part of the High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) model—is evaluated with observations from the In-Cloud Icing and Large drop Experiment (ICICLE) field campaign. These observations are also used to train a random forest machine learning (ML) model, which is then used to predict SLD from several variables derived from HRRR model output. Results provide insight on the limitations and benefits of each model. Generally, the ML model results in an increase in the probability of detection (POD) and false alarm rate (FAR) of SLD compared to prediction from TE microphysics. Additionally, the POD of SLD increases with increasing forecast lead time for both models, likely since clouds and precipitation have more time to develop as forecast length increases. Since SLD take time to develop in TE microphysics and may be poorly represented in short-term (<3 h) forecasts, the ML model can provide improved short-term guidance on supercooled large-drop icing conditions. Results also show that TE microphysics predicts a frequency of SLD in cold (<−10°C) or high ice water content (IWC) environments that is too low compared to observations, whereas the ML model better captures the relative frequency of SLD in these environments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".