Paper detail

From Many to One: Consensus Inference in a MIP

A Model Intercomparison Project (MIP) consists of teams who each estimate the same underlying quantity (e.g., temperature projections to the year 2070), and the spread of the estimates indicates their uncertainty. It recognizes that a community of scientists will not agree completely but that there is value in looking for a consensus and information in the range of disagreement. A simple average of the teams' outputs gives a consensus estimate, but it does not recognize that some outputs are more variable than others. Statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) models offer a way to obtain a weighted consensus estimate of outputs with a variance that is the smallest possible and hence the tightest possible 'one-sigma' and 'two-sigma' intervals. Modulo dependence between MIP outputs, the ANOVA approach weights a team's output inversely proportional to its variation. When external verification data are available for evaluating the fidelity of each MIP output, ANOVA weights can also provide a prior distribution for Bayesian Model Averaging to yield a consensus estimate. We use a MIP of carbon dioxide flux inversions to illustrate the ANOVA-based weighting and subsequent consensus inferences.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.