What Aspect of Model Performance is the Most Relevant to Skillful Future Projection on a Regional Scale?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Weighting models according to their performance has been used to produce multimodel climate change projections. But the added value of model weighting for future projection is not always examined. Here we apply an imperfect model framework to evaluate the added value of model weighting in projecting summer temperature changes over China. Members of large-ensemble simulations by three climate models of different climate sensitivities are used as pseudo-observations for the past and the future. Performance of the models participating in the phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) are evaluated against the pseudo-observations based on simulated historical climatology and trends in global, regional, and local temperatures to determine the model weights for future projection. The weighted projections are then compared with the pseudo-observations in the future period. We find that regional trend as a metric of model performance yields generally better skill for future projection, while past climatology as performance metric does not lead to a significant improvement to projection. Trend at the grid-box scale is also not a good performance indicator as small-scale trend is highly uncertain. For the model weighting to be effective, the metric for evaluating the model’s performance must be relatable to future changes, with the response signal separable from internal variability. Projected summer warming based on model weighting is similar to that of unweighted projection but the 5th–95th-percentile uncertainty range of the weighted projection is 38% smaller with the reduction mainly in the upper bound, with the largest reduction appearing in southeast China.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".