Development and evaluation of ensemble down-selection methods for precipitation forecast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".