MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390725784 · doi:10.1175/waf-d-23-0017.1

Comparison of Clustering Approaches in a Multimodel Ensemble for U.S. East Coast Cold Season Extratropical Cyclones

2024· article· en· W4390725784 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benjamin M. Kiel, Brian A. Colle

Bibliographic record

VenueWeather and Forecasting · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtratropical cycloneClimatologyEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyCluster analysisGeographyComputer scienceGeologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Several clustering approaches are evaluated for 1–9-day forecasts using a multimodel ensemble that includes the GEFS, ECMWF, and Canadian ensembles. Six clustering algorithms and three clustering spaces are evaluated using mean sea level pressure (MSLP) and 12-h accumulated precipitation (APCP) for cool-season extratropical cyclones across the Northeast United States. Using the MSLP cluster membership to obtain the APCP clusters is also evaluated, along with applying clustering determined at one lead time to cluster forecasts at a different lead time. Five scenarios from each clustering algorithm are evaluated using displacement and intensity/amount errors from the scenario nearest to the MSLP and 12-h APCP analyses in the NCEP GFS and ERA5, respectively. Most clustering strategies yield similar improvements over the full ensemble mean and are similar in probabilistic skill except that 1) intensity displacement space gives lower MSLP displacement and intensity errors; and 2) Euclidean space and agglomerative hierarchical clustering, when using either full or average linkage, struggle to produce reasonably sized clusters. Applying clusters derived from MSLP to 12-h APCP forecasts is not as skillful as clustering by 12-h APCP directly, especially if several members contain little precipitation. Use of the same cluster membership for one lead time to cluster the forecast at another lead time is less skillful than clustering independently at each forecast lead time. Finally, the number of members within each cluster does not necessarily correspond with the best forecast, especially at the longer lead times, when the probability of the smallest cluster being the best scenario was usually underestimated. Significance Statement Numerical weather prediction ensembles are widely used, but more postprocessing tools are necessary to help forecasters interpret and communicate the possible outcomes. This study evaluates various clustering approaches, combining a large number of model forecasts with similar attributes together into a small number of scenarios. The 1–9-day forecasts of both sea level pressure and 12-h precipitation are used to evaluate the clustering approaches for a large number of U.S. East Coast winter cyclones, which is an important forecast problem for this region.

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)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeather and ForecastingSame topicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones ResearchFrench-language works237,207