2018
DOI: 10.5194/npg-25-355-2018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Feature-based data assimilation in geophysics

Abstract: Abstract. Many applications in science require that computational models and data be combined. In a Bayesian framework, this is usually done by defining likelihoods based on the mismatch of model outputs and data. However, matching model outputs and data in this way can be unnecessary or impossible. For example, using large amounts of steady state data is unnecessary because these data are redundant. It is numerically difficult to assimilate data in chaotic systems. It is often impossible to assimilate data of… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An important feature to mention and not often addressed by DA studies (Morzfeld et al, 2018, is a nice exception), is sensitivity of data assimilation methods to the observations chosen for assimilation. In the case of fSCA assimilations a melt period is defined as this is when the observations provide information about the snow depletion curve (e.g.…”
Section: Melt Period Definitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An important feature to mention and not often addressed by DA studies (Morzfeld et al, 2018, is a nice exception), is sensitivity of data assimilation methods to the observations chosen for assimilation. In the case of fSCA assimilations a melt period is defined as this is when the observations provide information about the snow depletion curve (e.g.…”
Section: Melt Period Definitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A second approach consists in designing f (d) to extract specifically information linked to the structural parameters s using domain knowledge, leading to the so-called insight-driven features (Morzfeld et al, 2018). For instance, Hermans et al (2015) applied an insight-driven approach favoring a combination of inversion and multidimensional scaling (MDS) to extract relevant features for the geological scenario, while Scheidt et al (2015a) used a wavelet transform on seismic reflection data in combination with an L 2 -norm distance as insight-driven feature to update different uncertain geological parameters.…”
Section: Designing Data Features To Inform On Structural Parametersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the latter case, the noise model for the data is no longer valid for the features. Instead of handling this using "perturbed" observations (Hermans et al, 2016;Morzfeld et al, 2018), adaptive KDE can deal with this directly because it works for heteroscedastic and multimodal distributions.…”
Section: Kde and Cross-validation Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the synthetic likelihood approach involves re-creating the likelihood for every new model parameter value, 90 which would require excessive CPU times in our setting. Recent work by Morzfeld et al (2018) describes another feature-vector approach for data assimilation. For more details and comparisons among these approaches, see the discussion below in Section 2.1. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-350 Preprint.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These methods also require long-time integration of the forward model for each candidate parameter value θ, rather than integration for only one epoch. Morzfeld et al (2018) also discuss several ways of using feature vectors for inference in geophysics. A distinction of the present work is that we use 210 an ECDF-based summary statistic that is provably Gaussian, and we perform extensive Bayesian analysis of the parameter posteriors via novel MCMC methods.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%