the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Multilevel Monte Carlo methods for ensemble variational data assimilation
Abstract. Ensemble variational data assimilation relies on ensembles of forecasts to estimate the background error covariance matrix B. The ensemble can be provided by an Ensemble of Data Assimilations (EDA), which runs independent perturbed data assimilation and forecast steps. The accuracy of the ensemble estimator of B is strongly limited by the small ensemble size that is needed to keep the EDA computationally affordable. We investigate here the potential of the multilevel Monte Carlo (MLMC) method, a type of multifidelity Monte Carlo method, to improve the accuracy of the standard Monte-Carlo estimator of B while keeping the computational cost of ensemble generation comparable. MLMC exploits the availability of a range of discretization grids, thus shifting part of the computational work from the original assimilation grid to coarser ones. MLMC differs from the mere averaging of statistical estimators, as it ensures that no bias from the coarse resolution grids is introduced in the estimation. The implications for ensemble variational data assimilation systems based on EDAs are discussed. Numerical experiments with a quasi-geostrophic model demonstrate the potential of the approach, as MLMC yields more accurate background error covariances and reduced analysis error. The challenges involved in cycling a multilevel variational data assimilation system are identified and discussed.
- Preprint
(1435 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 28 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3628', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jan 2025
reply
The authors discussed the background error covariance estimation using (weighted) multi-level Monte Carlo (wMLMC) method in variational data assimilation (DA). The authors discussed several practical considerations when MLMC is sued to estimate a covariance matrix: 1) the mean squared error and variance of a covariance MLMC estimator; 2) computational budget allocation; 3) localisation and positive definiteness of the estimated covariance matrix. The MLMC estimator and the performance of corresponding 3DEnVar is investigated by a two-dimensional two-layer quasi-geostrophic channel model after 12 hour forecast from an initial ensemble without data assimilation cycles. The paper is well-written and is worth publication.
Major comments:
1. The Experimental setting section may be benefit from a figure to illustrate the model setup.
2. Current results are all built on a single dynamical snapshot of the model. Optionally, is it possible to build a stronger case by running a long deterministic trajectory of the model, and a few select different time step with very different features of dynamics as initial condition to generate ensemble with 12 hour forecast such that the computational cost does not drastically increase?
3. When the ensemble member allocation is tuned based on Eq. (14) and (16), do we expect that the a^(k) and b^(k), or C^(k) change significantly due to the flow-dependency of ensemble forecasting? The authors suggest to change the ensemble allocation less frequently (L573 - L575). Do we expect that MSE of estimated B matrix at least as accurate as high-resolution B matrix, i.e. the MC method?
4. Using the B matrix from MLMC and MC shows, the results show that the analysis has limited improvements. Could this be related to the smooth streamfunction in the QG model? Would we expect significant differences for other fields, e.g., PV?
Minor comments:L5: "...affordable We investigate..." -> "...affordable. We investigate..."
L57: "...the Ensemble Kalman Filter(..." -> "the ensemble Kalman filters ("
L87: "the composition operator" -> "a composition operator"
L159: Perhaps a set should be represented with curly brackets?
L160: "...stochastic inputs are all independent..." -> "... number of stochastic inputs are all independent..."
L221: The author states that "...related to small fourth-order moments of the correction terms, and so to strong correlations between stochastically-coupled simulations...". Does this mean that adjacent level of model must yield similar outcome? How close should be these levels? Does this also justify the 0 value for level 0?
L270: "corrections term" -> "correction term"
L318: "1:3 ratio..." -> "1:3 ratio between the width and length of the domain..."
L443: "apply them to a Dirac impulse" reads as if the estimator is used to estimate the covariance of a Dirac impulse, which is not the case, I think. This also means that Fig. 4 and 5 are covariance of one grid point with the entire domain.
L477: Here, can the authors briefly explain why the cost is proportial to the ensemble member instead of grid size?
L534: "...is to remain..." -> "...remains..."
L553: What is the B norm?
L641: alpha should be bold?Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3628-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
81 | 40 | 5 | 126 | 1 | 2 |
- HTML: 81
- PDF: 40
- XML: 5
- Total: 126
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1