Cited by 1,142Meteorological Phenomena and SimulationsForecasting Techniques and ApplicationsClimate variability and models

Calibrated Probabilistic Forecasting Using Ensemble Model Output Statistics and Minimum CRPS Estimation

Open access
Gneiting, Tilmann, Raftery, Adrian E., Westveld, Anton H., Goldman, Tom·2005·Monthly Weather Review

Abstract

Ensemble prediction systems typically show positive spread-error correlation, but they are subject to forecast bias and dispersion errors, and are therefore uncalibrated. This work proposes the use of ensemble model output statistics (EMOS), an easy-to-implement postprocessing technique that addresses both forecast bias and underdispersion and takes into account the spread-skill relationship. The technique is based on multiple linear regression and is akin to the superensemble approach that has traditionally been used for deterministic-style forecasts. The EMOS technique yields probabilistic forecasts that take the form of Gaussian predictive probability density functions (PDFs) for continuous weather variables and can be applied to gridded model output. The EMOS predictive mean is a bias-corrected weighted average of the ensemble member forecasts, with coefficients that can be interpreted in terms of the relative contributions of the member models to the ensemble, and provides a highly competitive deterministic-style forecast. The EMOS predictive variance is a linear function of the ensemble variance. For fitting the EMOS coefficients, the method of minimum continuous ranked probability score (CRPS) estimation is introduced. This technique finds the coefficient values that optimize the CRPS for the training data. The EMOS technique was applied to 48-h forecasts of sea level pressure and surface temperature over the North American Pacific Northwest in spring 2000, using the University of Washington mesoscale ensemble. When compared to the bias-corrected ensemble, deterministic-style EMOS forecasts of sea level pressure had root-mean-square error 9% less and mean absolute error 7% less. The EMOS predictive PDFs were sharp, and much better calibrated than the raw ensemble or the bias-corrected ensemble.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1175/mwr2904.1

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Eckel, F. A., 2003: Effective mesoscale, short-range ensemble forecasting. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 224 pp. [Available online at www.atmos.washington.edu/ ϳens/pubs_n_pres.html.
  2. --, --, F. Balabdaoui, and A. Westveld, 2003: Verifying probabilistic forecasts: Calibration and sharpness. Proc. Workshop on Ensemble Weather Forecasting in the Short to Medium Range, Val-Morin, QC, Canada. [Available online at www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/tom.hamill/ef_workshop_2003_ schedule.html.]
  3. --, and --, 2004: Forecasting mesoscale uncertainty: Short- range ensemble forecast error predictability. Preprints, 16th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, Seattle, WA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., CD-ROM, 24.3. [Available online at www. atmos.washington.edu/ϳens/pubs_n_pres.html.]
  4. Press, W. H., S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flan- nery, 1992: Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN: The Art of Sci- entific Computing. 2d ed. Cambridge University Press, 963 pp.
  5. Talagrand, O., R. Vautard, and B. Strauss, 1997: Evaluation of probabilistic prediction systems. Proc. Workshop on Predict- ability, Reading, United Kingdom, European Centre for Me- dium-Range Weather Forecasts, 1-25.
  6. --, O. Talagrand, G. Candille, and Y. Zhu, 2003: Probability and ensemble forecasts. Forecast Verification: A Practitio- ner's Guide in Atmospheric Science, I. T. Jolliffe and D. B. Stephenson, Eds., Wiley, 137-163.
  7. Unger, D. A., 1985: A method to estimate the continuous ranked probability score. Preprints, Ninth Conf. on Probability and Statistics in Atmospheric Sciences, Virginia Beach, VA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 206-213.
  8. Wilks, D. S., 1995: Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences. Academic Press, 467 pp.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gneiting, T., Raftery, A. E., Westveld, A. H., & Goldman, T.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
Monthly Weather Review
Published
2005-05-01
Volume
133
Issue
5
Pages
1098-1118
ISSN
  • 0027-0644 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0493
OpenAlex
W1976255336
Cited by
1,142
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 98 · 2023: 93 · 2022: 105 · 2021: 105 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 77 · 2018: 75 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 27
FWCI
10.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Weather Review (publishedVersion)
  • Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-01-10745, N00014)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Forecasting Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
Keywords
ensemble model output statistics, forecast calibration, continuous ranked probability score, forecast bias correction, underdispersion, probabilistic weather forecasting, sea level pressure, surface temperature

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review