MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115038359

Development and evaluation of ensemble down-selection methods for precipitation forecast

2025· dissertation· en· W7115038359 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2025
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecipitationQuantitative precipitation forecastProcess (computing)Forecast verificationStatistical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ensemble forecasting is a robust technique for quantifying forecast uncertainty, with larger ensemble sizes providing more accurate error estimation by reducing sampling error.However, large ensembles are computationally expensive for operational forecasting due to the substantial computer resources required.At the Canadian Meteorological Center (CMC), an ensemble of 256 members is only generated for error estimation, while a fixed subset of 20 members is utilized for medium-range forecasts twice daily.This simple selection of a subset is named as down-selection, which reduces the computational expenses.Other complex down-selection methods have also been developed to improve forecasts, but not for hourly precipitation forecasts, which present additional challenges due to their high spatiotemporal variability.This necessitates the development of downselection methods specifically tailored to hourly precipitation forecasts.The objective of this dissertation is to develop and evaluate three ensemble down-selection methods-Localized Ensemble Mosaic Assimilation (LEMA), Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and Continuous Ranked Probability Score (CRPS)-designed for the forecast of hourly precipitation.These methods share a common principle: members that better capture surface precipitation patterns relative to observations are on average closer to the "true" state, thereby improving precipitation forecasts.LEMA emphasizes the preservation of local precipitation structures, while PCA selects members based on domain-wide precipitation patterns.However, PCA's global approach used in this study reduces forecast error but compromises ensemble spread, thereby limiting error estimation capabilities.In contrast, LEMA maintains ensemble spread but sacrifices hourly precipitation accuracy.To address these trade-offs, we propose a third method, ABSTRACT viii based on the CRPS, that strikes a balance between precipitation error minimization and ensemble spread retention.Results demonstrate that the CRPS-based down-selection method outperforms LEMA and PCA, achieving lower hourly precipitation errors while preserving ensemble spread.Compared to a random subset, our approaches improve hourly precipitation forecasts by up to 6 forecast hours, notably from a reduction in incorrect precipitation forecasts (false alarms).These findings underscore the potential of three down-selection methods in different contexts to improve hourly precipitation forecasts under computational constraints.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
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 integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207