Using Non-Homogeneous Gaussian Regression to incorporate heteroscedasticity when post-processing air temperature forecasts by Bayesian Model Averaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Raw forecasts, be they weather or hydrological, suffer from the inevitable errors stemming from either model structures or initial conditions estimation. With forecasting being a critical component in addressing challenges in flood control, reservoir and hydropower operation, and other fields related to the environment, energy and public safety, improving forecasting skill is increasingly necessary. Post-processing methods can help in this regard and can help improve forecast accuracy and reliability. Non-Homogeneous Gaussian Regression (NGR) and Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) are the two most commonly used methods when it comes to post-processing probabilistic forecasts, and they have shown to be similarly efficient in many studies. For case studies where there are several distinct forecasts for one single observation, NGR risks losing information on uncertainty by aggregating the forecasts even though it accounts for heteroscedasticity. BMA, on the other hand, evaluates distinct model components and utilizes them accordingly, while assuming all the forecasts are alike in their under/overdispersion. This work introduces a mixed NGR-BMA approach for calibrating air temperature forecasts with lead-times of 1-10 days where the forecasts are first processed with NGR and then corrected once more by BMA according to a priori information on the skill of model components. This way, the upsides of each method is maintained through post-processing. The results generally show that the higher the lead-time, the more the proposed method outperforms either BMA or NGR taken individually.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".