Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 64 references

On the sensitivity of different ensemble filters to the type of assimilated observation networks

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper tries to establish that a Gaussian ensemble filter and a diffusion-based ensemble filter reverse their relative accuracy as the observation network gains even a small nonlinear component.

desk verdict Useful idealized DA comparison whose central nonlinear-robustness claim is confounded by unequal observation error variances (R=0.012I vs I) and needs a matched-variance control. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04541 v1 pith:3G26SYTY submitted 2025-05-07 physics.ao-ph nlin.CDstat.ME

Zixiang Xiong , Siming Liang , Feng Bao , Guannan Zhang , Hristo G. Chipilski This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ao-phnlin.CDstat.ME
keywords observationnetworksensembledataassimilationLETKFEnSFsurfacequasi-geostrophicmodelnonlinearobservationsdiffusionfiltermultiscaleanalysiserrors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports identical-twin data assimilation experiments on a 64x64 surface quasi-geostrophic (SQG) turbulent flow, comparing the standard Local Ensemble Transform Kalman Filter (LETKF) with the Ensemble Score Filter (EnSF), a diffusion-model-based filter designed for non-Gaussian analysis distributions. The central finding is that the two filters respond very differently to the observation network. With purely linear observations, LETKF is roughly four times more accurate (RMSE about 0.64-0.72 versus 2.43-2.76). But when even 5-20% of the observations are nonlinear arctangent measurements, LETKF's RMSE jumps to roughly 8-10 and, in the RANDOM network, no localization/inflation tuning prevents divergence, while EnSF stays around 2.4-2.8. The authors argue that this contrast matters for operational systems that increasingly assimilate nonlinear observations such as radar reflectivity and all-sky radiances.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three objects. The first is the SQG model, a doubly periodic turbulent flow (8192 state variables) used for identical-twin experiments. The second is EnSF, a training-free diffusion-score ensemble filter that represents the analysis distribution by score-based diffusion sampling rather than Gaussian updates; it is used without localization or inflation tuning. The third is LETKF, a local ensemble transform Kalman filter whose analysis depends on localization and inflation parameters that must be tuned. The observation networks (FIXED, FIXED_EVEN, RANDOM) and the arctangent observation operator are the testbed through which the two filters' sensitivity is probed. The nonlinearity threshold at which LETKF loses its tuning window is the mechanism that explains the numerical results.

What would settle it

Run the same SQG/LETKF comparison with arctangent observations and R=I instead of R=0.012I, or equivalently with linear observations and R=0.012I. If LETKF's RMSE remains near the linear-case values in the first version, or jumps in the second, then the reported degradation is driven by observation precision, not by nonlinearity; if the nonlinear experiments keep showing divergence only when the arctangent operator is present at matched variance, the paper's nonlinearity story is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a conditional role reversal between a Gaussian and a non-Gaussian ensemble filter as the observing network becomes nonlinear. In the fully linear setting a well-tuned LETKF is the better filter, roughly four times more accurate than EnSF across all three networks. Once the network includes a small fraction of arctangent observations, LETKF's time-averaged analysis RMSE rises from about 0.64-0.72 to 7.96-10.13, while EnSF stays between 2.43 and 2.84 regardless of network or nonlinear fraction. The paper also finds that LETKF's localization/inflation tuning becomes fragile: at 5% nonlinearity the region of stable parameters shrinks sharply, and with the RANDOM network no parameter combination avoids divergence. EnSF needs no localization or inflation tuning and its error spectrum stays nearly unchanged, whereas LETKF's nonlinear analysis errors concentrate at large scales, a configuration the authors associate with faster forecast-error growth.

Load-bearing premise

The experiments change two things at once: the observations become nonlinear and they are trusted about 83 times more (R=0.012I instead of R=I), so the paper's nonlinearity story depends on those two effects not being entangled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In an operational EnKF system, adding a small nonlinear observation component may force frequent retuning of localization and inflation, and in moving observation networks it may make stable LETKF analysis impossible.
  • For identical networks, EnSF delivers roughly constant RMSE across 0-100% nonlinear observation fractions, implying that diffusion-based filters may not need network-specific tuning.
  • Evenly spaced fixed networks yield the smallest analysis errors for both filters; clustered fixed networks are worst, and the RANDOM network is the first regime in which LETKF diverges.
  • In LETKF, nonlinear observations shift analysis errors toward large scales, which the paper links to faster forecast-error growth; thus RMSE alone may understate the practical cost.
  • The threshold analysis (5% in RANDOM, 15-20% in fixed networks) gives a concrete benchmark for future observation network design and data assimilation method comparisons.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct extension would rerun the experiments with matched observation-error variances to isolate nonlinearity from precision, since the paper changes both at once; until then the threshold percentages should be read as joint effects.
  • If EnSF's robustness carries over to realistic models, observing system simulation experiments may need to rank networks by filter type, because a network that is poor for LETKF (RANDOM with a few nonlinear observations) is unproblematic for EnSF.
  • The spectral results imply that future observing system impact studies should report scale-resolved analysis error, because two filters with similar RMSE could still differ in forecast-error growth if their error spectra have different slopes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents identical-twin observing-system simulation experiments with the surface quasi-geostrophic model, comparing the Local Ensemble Transform Kalman Filter (LETKF) with the authors' recently developed Ensemble Score Filter (EnSF). The experiments vary the number, spatial distribution, and nonlinear fraction (arctangent observations) of assimilated observations, and report time-averaged analysis RMSEs and kinetic-energy spectra of analysis errors. The central empirical claim is that LETKF performs better for fully linear observations but degrades sharply once 5–20% of observations are nonlinear, especially for the RANDOM network, while EnSF remains essentially unchanged in RMSE across all configurations despite using no localization or inflation tuning.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper is a useful early contribution to the question of how observation network design should be reassessed for non-Gaussian and AI-based data assimilation methods. The authors provide open-source code on GitHub and Zenodo, which is a genuine strength for reproducibility. The comparison is a fair benchmark in the sense that no parameter is fitted to force the main result, and the experiments are independent numerical tests of EnSF against a standard baseline. However, the significance is currently limited by a confounded experimental design and by the absence of uncertainty quantification, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (1)] The central comparison is confounded because the observation error covariance is set to R=I for linear observations and R=0.012I for nonlinear arctangent observations. Each nonlinear observation therefore enters the likelihood with roughly 83 times the precision of each linear observation. In hybrid networks, LETKF will weight the arctangent observations far more heavily, and the sharp degradation seen at 5–20% nonlinearity in Table 1 and Figure 2 could be caused by this precision imbalance rather than by nonlinearity of the observation operator per se. EnSF, which samples the posterior differently, may respond differently to the same imbalance, so the LETKF-versus-EnSF contrast is not a clean test of nonlinearity robustness. A matched-variance control, for example using R=I for both operator types or scaling the arctangent operator so that the two observation types have comparable effective precision, is needed to isolate the effect of nonlinearity. The tuning difficulty shown in Figure 3 is confounded in the same way.
  2. [Table 1, Figure 2, Figure 3] All reported RMSEs are single time-averaged values, and no indication is given of the spread across independent realizations of the nature run, initial ensemble, or observation error draws. The claims of small differences among networks (e.g., FIXED_EVEN vs. RANDOM in the nonlinear LETKF rows, or differences of ~0.05 in EnSF RMSE among networks) are therefore of unquantified statistical significance. The authors should repeat the experiments with multiple independently generated nature runs or initial ensembles and report error bars or at least the ensemble spread of the time-averaged RMSE. Without this, the network-sensitivity conclusions in Section 4 are not well supported.
  3. [Section 3, Table 1] The exact LETKF localization and inflation settings used to produce Table 1 are not reported. The text describes LETKF as 'well-tuned' and 'optimally tuned', and Figure 3 shows tuning sweeps, but the specific parameter values selected for the RMSE results are not stated. This is essential for reproducibility and for assessing whether the nonlinear LETKF runs might be suboptimal. The authors should state the localization scale and RTPS inflation value used for each row of Table 1, or explain how the optimal values were chosen from Figure 3.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] There are small typographical errors in the reference list, for example 'Atmospheric data analsysis' in Daley (1991) and 'many sclaes of motion' in Rotunno and Snyder (2008); these should be corrected.
  2. [Section 2.2] The nonlinear observation operator is described as an arctangent function applied to a subset of grid points, but no formula or normalization is given. Since the derivative of the operator controls the effective observation sensitivity, the authors should specify the exact arctangent scaling and the typical range of the SQG state values being transformed.
  3. [Section 3, Figure 4] The methodology for computing the kinetic energy spectra of the analysis errors is not described. The authors should state the spectral formula, the windowing or averaging used, and whether the spectra were computed from the full 400-cycle period or from a subset.
  4. [Section 4] The statement that radar reflectivity accounts for 'just over 20% of the observations' in KENDA is attributed to personal correspondence; this is not independently verifiable and should be either removed or supported by a citable source.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central claims are independent identical-twin benchmarks; the R=I vs R=0.012I choice is an experimental confound, not a fitted parameter or a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

I searched for all seven circularity patterns. The paper's central claims are numerical outputs from OSSE-style identical-twin experiments comparing LETKF and EnSF on the SQG model; they are not deductions from fitted parameters or from equations that equal their own inputs by construction. EnSF is the authors' own method (Bao et al. 2024, 2025), and its configuration is reused from prior work, but this is a normal transfer of methodology rather than a load-bearing self-citation: no uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted value is imported from the self-cited papers to force the reported results. The released code and independent benchmark runs provide external checkability. The notable experimental weakness is that linear observations use R=I while nonlinear arctangent observations use R=0.012I, so the nonlinear fraction is confounded with observation-error precision; this is a validity and interpretation concern, not circularity, because the comparison outcomes are not equivalent to this input by definition and no parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The absence of reported LETKF localization/inflation settings for Table 1 likewise reduces reproducibility but does not introduce a circular derivation. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on experimental design choices (R covariance, LETKF tuning, arctan operator) rather than on a derivation; these choices are either underreported or confound the nonlinearity factor.

free parameters (3)
  • Nonlinear observation error variance scale = 0.012 (R = 0.012*I)
    Chosen by hand in Section 2.2; the nonlinear arctangent observations are assigned much smaller error variance than linear observations (R=I), entangling nonlinearity with observation precision.
  • LETKF localization scale and RTPS inflation = not fully reported (e.g., 1000 km and 0.9 mentioned for one RANDOM case)
    Section 2.3/Figure 3: LETKF requires tuning; exact values used for Table 1 results are not stated, so the comparison may not reflect optimal LETKF in nonlinear regimes.
  • EnSF configuration = same as Bao et al. 2025
    The paper uses a single fixed EnSF setup without localization/inflation tuning; performance depends on prior choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SQG model equations (Tulloch and Smith, 2009) accurately represent nonlinear Eady dynamics with turbulent cascades.
    Section 2.1; the SQG model is the testbed; results may not transfer to other regimes.
  • ad hoc to paper The arctangent observation operator is a representative proxy for nonlinear observations such as radar reflectivity and all-sky radiances.
    Section 2.2; this modeling choice is introduced for the paper and is not derived or calibrated against real observations.
  • domain assumption Durran and Gingrich (2014) result that larger-scale analysis errors grow faster under a -5/3 forward cascade applies to this SQG setting.
    Section 3, used to infer forecast error growth from the spectral slope change.
  • domain assumption Identical twin experiment framework is valid for OSSE-type conclusions.
    Section 2, methodology; the nature run and DA use the same model, so conclusions may overstate skill relative to model-error scenarios.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the sensitivity of different ensemble filters to the type of assimilated observation networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3G26SYTY

@misc{pith2026250504541,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the sensitivity of different ensemble filters to the type of assimilated observation networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3G26SYTY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04541}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in data assimilation (DA) have focused on developing more flexible approaches that can better accommodate nonlinearities in models and observations. However, it remains unclear how the performance of these advanced methods depends on the observation network characteristics. In this study, we present initial experiments with the surface quasi-geostrophic model, in which we compare a recently developed AI-based ensemble filter with the standard Local Ensemble Transform Kalman Filter (LETKF). Our results show that the analysis solutions respond differently to the number, spatial distribution, and nonlinear fraction of assimilated observations. We also find notable changes in the multiscale characteristics of the analysis errors. Given that standard DA techniques will be eventually replaced by more advanced methods, we hope this study sets the ground for future efforts to reassess the value of Earth observation systems in the context of newly emerging algorithms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04541 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Observation locations in the FIXED and FIXED_EVEN networks (black dots), overlaid on an example realization of the potential temperature anomaly from the nature run (color shading). In addition to varying the percentage of nonlinear observations (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the analysis RMSEs for LETKF (dashed lines) and EnSF (solid lines) with the FIXED, FIXED_EVEN and RANDOM networks, each assimilating 1024 observations (25% of all state variables). Dif￾ferent colors indicate varying percentages of nonlinear (arctangent) observations. Another consequence of increasing the degree of nonlinearity in the observing system is the growing difficulty of determining optimal tuni… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustrating the challenges in optimally tuning the LETKF algorithm as the number of nonlinear (arct￾angent) observations increases. Each plot shows the time-averaged analysis RMSEs as a function of the RTPS (relaxation to prior spread) inflation parameter and horizontal localization scale. Rows correspond to different observation distributions in space (FIXED, FIXED_EVEN and RANDOM), while columns indicate varying … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the multiscale impacts on LETKF and EnSF analyses through the kinetic energy spectrum of the analysis mean errors for a fully linear observation network (left dashed box) and a network containing 20% nonlinear (arctangent) observations (right dashed box).…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished department institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 '...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap duplicate "7" = swap duplicate "8" = swap "9" = or or or or or or or or or FUNCTION n.separate 't := "" #0 'numnames := t empty not t #-1 #1 subs...

  3. [3]

    Amezcua, J., and P. J. van Leeuwen, 2014: Gaussian anamorphosis in the analysis step of the EnKF : a joint state-variable/observation approach. Tellus A: Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography , 66, 1--18, doi:https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v66.23493

    work page doi:10.3402/tellusa.v66.23493 2014

  4. [4]

    L., 2022: A quantile-conserving ensemble filter framework

    Anderson, J. L., 2022: A quantile-conserving ensemble filter framework. P art I : U pdating an observed variable. Monthly Weather Review, 150, 1061–1074, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-21-0229.1

    doi:10.1175/mwr-d-21-0229.1 2022

  5. [5]

    L., 2023: A quantile-conserving ensemble filter framework

    Anderson, J. L., 2023: A quantile-conserving ensemble filter framework. Part II: R egression of observation increments in a probit and probability integral transformed space. Monthly Weather Review, 151, 2759–2777, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-23-0065.1

    doi:10.1175/mwr-d-23-0065.1 2023

  6. [6]

    Arcucci, R., J. Zhu, S. Hu, and Y.-K. Guo, 2021: Deep data assimilation: Integrating deep learning with data assimilation. Applied Sciences, 11, 1114, doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/app11031114

    doi:10.3390/app11031114 2021

  7. [7]

    P., and C

    Arnold, C. P., and C. H. Dey, 1986: Observing-systems simulation experiments: Past , present, and future. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 67, 687--695, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1986)067<0687:OSSEPP>2.0.CO;2

    doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1986)067 1986

  8. [8]

    Baptista, E

    Bach, E., R. Baptista, E. Luk, and A. Stuart, 2025: Learning optimal filters using variational inference. arXiv, 1--21, doi:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.18066

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.18066 2025

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Baker, N. L., P. M. Pauley, R. E. Stone, and R. H. Langland, 2022: Data assimilation for atmospheric, oceanic and hydrologic applications, chap. Interpretation of forecast sensitivity observation impact in data denial experiments, 581--598. Springer Cham, Switzerland

    2022

  2. [10]

    N., 2017: A review of operational methods of variational and ensemble-variational data assimilation

    Bannister, R. N., 2017: A review of operational methods of variational and ensemble-variational data assimilation. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 143, 607--633, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2982

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Bao, F., H. G. Chipilski, S. Liang, G. Zhang, and J. S. Whitaker, 2025: Nonlinear ensemble filtering with diffusion models: Application to the surface quasi-geostrophic dynamics. Monthly Weather Review, doi:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.00844, accepted

    2025 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    Zhang, and G

    Bao, F., Z. Zhang, and G. Zhang, 2024: An ensemble score filter for tracking high-dimensional nonlinear dynamical systems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 432, Part B, 117\,447, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2024.117447

    2024

  5. [13]

    Sensors, 19, 2179, doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/s19092179

    Barbieri, L., and Coauthors, 2019: Intercomparison of small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS) measurements for atmospheric science during LAPSE-RATE campaign . Sensors, 19, 2179, doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/s19092179

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Bell, T. M., B. R. Greene, P. M. Klein, M. Carney, and P. B. Chilson, 2020: Confronting the boundary layer data gap: Evaluating new and existing methodologies of probing the lower atmosphere . Measurement Techniques, 13, 3855--3872, doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-3855-2020

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Farchi, T

    Bocquet, M., A. Farchi, T. S. Finn, C. Durand, S. Cheng, Y. Chen, I. Pasmans, and A. Carrassi, 2024: Accurate deep learning-based filtering for chaotic dynamics by identifying instabilities without an ensemble. Chaos, 34, 091\,104, doi:https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0230837

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Fillion, S

    Boudier, P., A. Fillion, S. Gratton, S. G\" u rol, and S. Zhang, 2023: Data assimilation networks. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 15, e2022MS003\,353, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS003353

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Anderson, and X

    Chan, M.-Y., J. Anderson, and X. Chen, 2020: An efficient bi- G aussian ensemble K alman filter for satellite infrared radiance data assimilation. Monthly Weather Review, 148, 5087–5104, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-20-0142.1

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    G., 2025: Exact nonlinear state estimation

    Chipilski, H. G., 2025: Exact nonlinear state estimation. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 81, 809--827, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-24-0171.1

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    Chipilski, H. G., X. Wang, and D. B. Parsons, 2020: Impact of assimilating PECAN profilers on the prediction of bore-driven nocturnal convection: A multiscale forecast evaluation for the 6 July 2015 case study. Monthly Weather Review, 148, 1147–1175, doi:https://doi.org/10.117...

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Chipilski, H. G., X. Wang, D. B. Parsons, A. Johnson, and S. K. Degelia, 2022: The value of assimilating different ground-based profiling networks on the forecasts of bore-generating nocturnal convection. Monthly Weather Review, 150, 1273–1292, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-...

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Bulletin of Atmospheric Science and Technology, 1, 23--42, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s42865-020-00003-8

    Cimini, D., and Coauthors, 2020: Towards the profiling of the atmospheric boundary layer at European scale -- introducing the COST Action PROBE . Bulletin of Atmospheric Science and Technology, 1, 23--42, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s42865-020-00003-8

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    1st ed., Cambridge University Press

    Daley, R., 1991: Atmospheric data analsysis. 1st ed., Cambridge University Press

    1991

  15. [23]

    Degelia, S. K., X. Wang, D. Stensrud, and D. D. Turner, 2020: Systematic evaluation of the impact of assimilating a network of ground-based remote sensing profilers for forecasts of nocturnal convection initiation during PECAN . Monthly Weather Review, 148, 4703--4728, doi:htt...

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Dowell, D. C., L. J. Wicker, and C. Snyder, 2011: Ensemble Kalman filter assimilation of radar observations of the 8 May 2003 Oklahoma City supercell: Influences of reflectivity observations on storm-scale analyses. Monthly Weather Review, 139, 272--294, doi:https://doi.org/10...

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    R., and M

    Durran, D. R., and M. Gingrich, 2014: Atmospheric predictability: why butterflies are not of practical importance. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 71, 2476–2488, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0007.1

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    Vossepoel, and P

    Evensen, G., F. Vossepoel, and P. J. van Leeuwen, 2021: Data assimilation fundamentals. 1st ed., Springer

    2021

  19. [27]

    J., and Coauthors, 2023: Lognormal and mixed G aussian-lognormal K alman filters

    Fletcher, S. J., and Coauthors, 2023: Lognormal and mixed G aussian-lognormal K alman filters. Monthly Weather Review, 151, 761–774, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-22-0072.1

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 16, e2023MS003\,692, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2023MS003692

    Frolov, S., and Coauthors, 2024: Local volume solvers for Earth system data assimilation: I mplementation in the framework for Joint Effort for Data Assimilation Integration . Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 16, e2023MS003\,692, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2023MS003692

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    J., and P

    Geer, A. J., and P. Bauer, 2011: Observation errors in all-sky data assimilation. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 137, 2024--2037, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.830

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    J., and Coauthors, 2018: All-sky satellite data assimilation at operational weather forecasting centres

    Geer, A. J., and Coauthors, 2018: All-sky satellite data assimilation at operational weather forecasting centres. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 144, 1191--1217, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3202

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 98, 767--787, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00257.1

    Geerts, B., and Coauthors, 2017: The 2015 Plains Elevated Convection At Night ( PECAN ) field project. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 98, 767--787, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00257.1

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 144, 1218--1256, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3179

    Gustafsson, N., and Coauthors, 2018: Survey of data assimilation methods for convective-scale numerical weather prediction at operational centres. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 144, 1218--1256, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3179

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Hamill, T. M., C. Snyder, and R. E. Morss, 2002: Analysis-error statistics of a quasigeostrophic model using three-dimensional variational assimilation. Monthly Weather Review, 130, 2777--2790, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2002)130<2777:AESOAQ>2.0.CO;2

    2002 doi

  26. [34]

    Hammoud, M. A. E. R., N. Raboudi, E. S. Titi, O. Knio, and I. Hoteit, 2024: Data assimilation in chaotic systems using deep reinforcement learning. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 16, e2023MS004\,178, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2023MS004178

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    Hu, C.-C., P. J. van Leeuwen, and J. L. Anderson, 2024: An implementation of the particle flow filter in an atmospheric model. Monthly Weather Review, 152, 2247--2264, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-24-0006.1

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Huang, Y., X. Wang, A. Mahre, T.-Y. Yu, and D. Bodine, 2022: Impacts of assimilating future clear-air radial velocity observations from phased array radar on convection initiation forecasts: An observing system simulation experiment study. Monthly Weather Review, 144, 1563--15...

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Hunt, B. R., E. J. Kostelich, and I. Szunyogh, 2007: Efficient data assimilation for spatiotemporal chaos: A local ensemble transform K alman filter. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 230, 112--126, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2006.11.008

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    A., and Coauthors, 2021: Assimilation of a coordinated fleet of uncrewed aircraft system observations in complex terrain: EnKF system design and preliminary assessment

    Jensen, A. A., and Coauthors, 2021: Assimilation of a coordinated fleet of uncrewed aircraft system observations in complex terrain: EnKF system design and preliminary assessment. Monthly Weather Review, 149, 1459--1480, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-20-0359.1

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    A., and Coauthors, 2022: Assimilation of a coordinated fleet of uncrewed aircraft system observations in complex terrain: Observing system experiments

    Jensen, A. A., and Coauthors, 2022: Assimilation of a coordinated fleet of uncrewed aircraft system observations in complex terrain: Observing system experiments. Monthly Weather Review, 150, 2737--2763, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-22-0090.1

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    Johnson, A., X. Wang, J. R. Carley, L. J. Wicker, and C. Karstens, 2015: A comparison of multiscale GSI -based EnKF and 3DVar data assimilation using radar and conventional observations for midlatitude convective-scale precipitation forecasts. Monthly Weather Review, 143, 3087...

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    Mote, and C

    Kalnay, E., S. Mote, and C. Da, 2024: Earth system modeling, data assimilation and predictability: Atmosphere , oceans, land and human systems . 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press

    2024

  34. [42]

    Flicker, R

    Kao, J., D. Flicker, R. Henninger, S. Frey, M. Ghil, and K. Ide, 2004: Data assimilation with an extended Kalman filter for impact-produced shock-wave dynamics. Journal of the Computational Physics, 196, 705--723, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2003.11.028

    2004 doi

  35. [43]

    Th\' e paut, R

    Kelly, G., J.-N. Th\' e paut, R. Buizza, and C. Cardinali, 2007: The value of observations. I: Data denial experiments for the Atlantic and the Pacific . Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological society, 133, 1803--1815, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.150

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    Haefele, N

    Leuenberger, D., A. Haefele, N. Omanovic, M. Fengler, G. Martucci, B. Calpini, O. Fuhrer, and A. Rossa, 2020: Improving high-impact numerical weather prediction with lidar and drone observations. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 101, E1036–E1051, doi:https://do...

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    arXiv, 1--25, doi:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.16947

    Manshausen, P., and Coauthors, 2025: Generative data assimilation of sparse weather station observations at kilometer scales. arXiv, 1--25, doi:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.16947

    2025 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    Progress in joint OSSEs , 9

    Masutani, M., and Coauthors, 2007: A new nature run and international collaboration. Progress in joint OSSEs , 9

    2007

  39. [47]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 115, D07\,101, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012528

    Masutani, M., and Coauthors, 2010: Observing system simulation experiments at the National Centers for Environmental Prediction . Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 115, D07\,101, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012528

    2010 doi

  40. [48]

    Zhang, 2017: Adaptive observation error inflation for assimilating all-sky satellite radiances

    Minamide, M., and F. Zhang, 2017: Adaptive observation error inflation for assimilating all-sky satellite radiances. Monthly Weather Review, 145, 1063--1081, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0257.1

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    Morss, R. E., K. A. Emanuel, and C. Snyder, 2001: Idealized adaptive observation strategies for improving numerical weather prediction. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 58, 210--232, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058<0210:IAOSFI>2.0.CO;2

    2001 doi

  42. [50]

    Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 148, 620--640, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4221

    Nerger, L., 2022: Data assimilation for nonlinear systems with a hybrid nonlinear Kalman ensemble transform filter. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 148, 620--640, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4221

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    Monthly Weather Review, 144, 59--76, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-15-0163.1

    Poterjoy, J., 2016: A localized particle filter for high-dimensional nonlinear systems. Monthly Weather Review, 144, 59--76, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-15-0163.1

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    Monthly Weather Review, 150, 1475--1493, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-21-0228.1

    Poterjoy, J., 2022: Implications of multivariate non- G aussian data assimilation for multi-scale weather prediction. Monthly Weather Review, 150, 1475--1493, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-21-0228.1

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    Poterjoy, J., R. A. Sobash, and J. L. Anderson, 2017: Convective-scale data assimilation for the W eather R esearch and F orecasting model using the local particle filter. Monthly Weather Review, 145, 1897–1918, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0298.1

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    Walter, and A

    Potthast, R., A. Walter, and A. Rhodin, 2019: A localized adaptive particle filter within an operational NWP framework. Monthly Weather Review, 147, 345--362, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0028.1

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    Schenk, P

    Rojahn, A., N. Schenk, P. J. van Leeuwen, and R. Potthast, 2023: Particle filtering and G aussian mixtures - on a localized mixture coefficients particle filter ( LMCPF ) for global NWP . Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan, 101, 233--253, doi:https://doi.org/10.215...

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    Snyder, 2008: A generalization of L orenz's model for the predictability of flows with many sclaes of motion

    Rotunno, R., and C. Snyder, 2008: A generalization of L orenz's model for the predictability of flows with many sclaes of motion. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 65, 1063–1076, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2449.1

    2008 doi

  49. [57]

    Scheck, L. M., M. Weissmann, and L. Bach, 2020: Assimilating visible satellite images for convective-scale numerical weather prediction : A case-study. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 146, 3165--3186, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3840

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    Reich, A

    Schraff, C., H. Reich, A. Rhodin, A. Schomburg, K. Stephan, A. Periáñez, and R. Potthast, 2016: Kilometre-scale ensemble data assimilation for the COSMO model ( KENDA ). Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 142, 1453--1472, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2748

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    Kirchgessner, L

    T\"odter, J., P. Kirchgessner, L. Nerger, and B. Ahrens, 2016: Assessment of a nonlinear ensemble transform filter for high-dimensional data assimilation. Monthly Weather Review, 144, 409--427, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-15-0073.1

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    Tulloch, R., and K. S. Smith, 2009: A note on the numerical representation of surface dynamics in quasigeostrophic turbulence: Application to the nonlinear Eady model. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 66, 1063--1068, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JAS2921.1

    2009 doi

  53. [61]

    van Leeuwen, P. J., H. R. K \"u nsch, L. Nerger, R. Potthast, and S. Reich, 2019: Particle filters for high-dimensional geoscience applications: a review. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 145, 2335--2365, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3551

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    Shen, 2024: A deep neural network-ensemble adjustment Kalman filter and its application on strongly coupled data assimilation

    Wang, R., and Z. Shen, 2024: A deep neural network-ensemble adjustment Kalman filter and its application on strongly coupled data assimilation. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 12, 108, doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12010108

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    Wang, X., H. G. Chipilski, C. H. Bishop, E. Satterfield, N. Baker, and J. S. Whitaker, 2021: A multiscale local gain form ensemble transform Kalman filter ( MLGETKF ). Monthly Weather Review, 149, 605–622, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-20-0290.1

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 99, 1639--1667, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0009.1

    Wulfmeyer, V., and Coauthors, 2018: A new research approach for observing and characterizing land–atmosphere feedback. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 99, 1639--1667, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0009.1

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.