the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Deep Learning-Enhanced Background Error Covariance Estimation for Massive-Ensemble Kalman Filter in Sea Surface Temperature Forecasting
Abstract. In recent years, deep learning-based ocean forecasting has become a prominent research focus. However, recent studies often rely on operational ocean forecast systems to provide initial conditions. Operational ocean forecast systems typically use Ensemble Data Assimilation (EDA) to generate these initial conditions. Nonetheless, the high computational cost of numerical models limits the ensemble sizes in EDA, resulting in rank deficiencies in the background error covariance matrix and introducing spurious correlations. To address these challenges and advance the operationalization of deep learning-based ocean forecasting, we propose Deepcov-EnKF, a deep learning-enhanced background error covariance method for massive Ensemble Kalman Filter (EnKF) applications in Sea Surface Temperature (SST) forecasting. The proposed method incorporates a deep learning-based SST forecasting model to generate approximately 5,000 ensemble members. It then directly maps this high-dimensional perturbation set into a background error covariance matrix using a deep neural network. This approach reduces the computational cost of covariance estimation by more than 200-fold compared to conventional techniques. Experimental results demonstrate that the forecasting model can initialize reliable 60-day SST predictions with a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of approximately 0.6 °C. Furthermore, assimilation diagnostics reveal that Deepcov-EnKF effectively resolves the spurious correlations in the covariance matrix. The method also exhibits robust stability and outperforms advanced numerical assimilation methods during a 360-day cycling forecasting experiment. This study confirms that Deepcov-EnKF overcomes key limitations of traditional EDA frameworks, significantly enhances the accuracy of SST assimilation, and lays the foundation for high-precision marine forecasting systems.
- Preprint
(4387 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 02 Nov 2026)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3488 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 23 Sep 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Baoxu Li, 25 Sep 2026
reply
Dear Executive Editor Añel,
Thank you very much for your careful assessment of our manuscript and for explaining GMD’s Code and Data Policy. We sincerely apologize that our original availability statement cited the sources of the raw data without clearly identifying a persistent archive for the precise processed data used in our study. We are grateful for the opportunity to correct this omission.
We have now archived the materials relevant to the study in Zenodo. The model code is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20993446. The processed global 1.5° atmospheric and ocean reanalysis data and ocean observation data used for training are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22908836. The saved forecast and B-matrix models, together with the experimental output arrays, are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22930636. The output record also provides a manifest and instructions for reconstructing the model files that were divided into parts for upload. The ERA5, Copernicus Marine, and NOAA references identify the original data providers, while the Zenodo records identify the specific processed inputs and outputs used in our work. Zenodo’s preservation and removal policies are published at https://about.zenodo.org/policies/.
We fully appreciate why access to these materials during public discussion is essential. We will revise the manuscript’s “Code and data availability” section and bibliography to cite all three records clearly when a revised version is requested. We are very keen to have our work evaluated through GMD’s public discussion and peer-review process, and we respectfully ask that the review be allowed to continue now that the code, processed inputs, models, and outputs have been archived. We would be grateful for the opportunity to address any further concerns you may have.
Sincerely,
The authorsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3488-AC1 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 25 Sep 2026
reply
Dear authors,
Thanks for addressing this issue so quickly. I have checked the repositories and we can consider now the current version of your manuscript in compliance with the code policy of the journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3488-CEC2
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 25 Sep 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Baoxu Li, 25 Sep 2026
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3488', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Sep 2026
reply
Review on Li et al.
## General comment
This study develops a deep-learning-based surrogate model for global sea-surface temperature (SST) forecasting and combines it with an ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) for data assimilation. The manuscript addresses an interesting topic; however, I identified several fundamental concerns regarding the data assimilation methodology, the construction and validation of the background-error covariance matrix, and, in particular, the evaluation and interpretation of the reported long-range forecast skill.
Because several of these issues concern the fundamental methodology and the validity of the main conclusions, I have focused my review on these major scientific and methodological issues rather than providing a detailed, line-by-line assessment of the entire manuscript. Consequently, I have not been able to comprehensively assess all of the results and discussion, particularly the results presented after subsection 4.2. The comments below therefore focus primarily on the parts of the manuscript that are essential for evaluating the validity of the main conclusions.
In my view, the issues below need to be addressed before the scientific validity of the proposed methodology, and the reported forecast skill can be properly established.
## Major comments
- Choice of the perturbed-observation EnKF
In this study, the authors adopt a perturbed-observation EnKF (Burgers et al., 1998; doi: 10.1175/1520-0493(1998)126<1719:ASITEK>2.0.CO;2). However, perturbed observations introduce additional sampling noise into the analyses and are therefore less commonly used in modern high-dimensional operational atmospheric and oceanic data assimilation systems, where deterministic ensemble Kalman filters (i.e., square-root filters), such as LETKF (Hunt et al., 2007; doi: 10.1016/j.physd.2006.11.008), are widely used.
The authors should clearly explain why a perturbed-observation EnKF is selected for this study. In particular, the additional sampling error introduced by perturbed observations may affect the required ensemble size and the performance of the proposed method. A comparison with a deterministic EnKF or LETKF would also help clarify whether the proposed method provides an advantage for practical high-dimensional data assimilation systems.
- Motivation for explicitly constructing the B matrix
In subsection 2.3, the authors propose a deep-learning-based method to construct the background-error covariance matrix B. The motivation is that B becomes prohibitively large for a high-dimensional system.
However, this motivation is not sufficiently convincing in the context of ensemble-based data assimilation. Modern ensemble-space methods such as LETKF avoid the explicit construction of the full B matrix by performing the essential covariance-related calculations in the ensemble space. In the case that the ensemble size is much smaller than the model dimension, the computationally relevant matrices can be reduced to the ensemble dimension.
Therefore, the authors should clarify why explicit or implicit construction of the full B matrix is necessary in their framework and what scientific or computational advantage the proposed DL-BEC method provides over existing ensemble-space approaches such as LETKF.
In particular, it would be important to compare the computational cost and analysis/forecast accuracy of the proposed method with an ensemble-space EnKF or LETKF using the same forecasting model and ensemble size.
- Training target for B
The construction of the training dataset for DL-BEC is not sufficiently described in subsection 2.3. The authors state that the training data consist of idealized error patterns and perturbations extracted from ensemble forecasts, but it is unclear how the corresponding target B matrices are generated.
This is a fundamental issue because the purpose of the proposed method is to avoid the expensive construction of high-dimensional covariance matrices. If the target B matrices used for training are calculated using conventional sample covariance matrices, the authors should explain how these matrices are generated, stored, and used during training.
In addition, the procedure for generating the “random samples over a wide range of idealized error patterns” should be described in sufficient detail to assess whether these samples are physically meaningful.
- Validation of the estimated B matrix
The accuracy of the DL-generated B matrix is difficult to assess because the true background-error covariance is not directly known. The manuscript should therefore provide a clearly defined reference or validation framework for evaluating the proposed B matrix.
For example, the authors could compare the DL-generated covariance with covariance estimates obtained from substantially larger ensembles, although the limitations of such a reference should also be discussed. More importantly, the authors should demonstrate whether differences between the DL-generated B and conventional ensemble covariance lead to measurable improvements in the analysis and forecast.
The manuscript should provide quantitative diagnostics of the covariance itself, such as covariance/correlation errors, variance distributions, eigenvalue spectra, spatial correlation length scales, or other appropriate measures, rather than relying primarily on qualitative comparisons.
The authors should also clarify whether the proposed DL-BEC is intended to reduce the sampling error associated with a finite ensemble. If this is one of the motivations, this should be explicitly demonstrated by experiments with different ensemble sizes.
- Use of ERA5 atmospheric forcing in the SST forecast
Subsection 2.2 does not sufficiently describe which information is available to the surrogate model during forecasting. The model input consists of SST and six atmospheric variables, while the training data appear to be derived from GLORYS and ERA5.
It is essential to clarify whether atmospheric variables from ERA5 after the forecast initialization time are provided to the surrogate model during the 60-day forecast. If future ERA5 atmospheric fields are used as input during the forecast period, the experiment should not be interpreted as an autonomous SST forecast. Rather, it would be a forecast driven by prescribed/reanalysis atmospheric forcing. This distinction is particularly important when evaluating the reported 60-day forecast skill.
The authors should explicitly describe the information available at forecast initialization and at every subsequent forecast step, and clearly distinguish between information available in a real forecasting system and information obtained retrospectively from reanalysis.
- Independence of the verification dataset
The manuscript should clearly specify which dataset is used as the reference for each forecast verification experiment. In particular, a dataset used for training or model development cannot be regarded as an independent verification dataset. The authors should provide a clear description of the training, validation, test, initialization, and verification datasets and explain their independence.
The use of only 2023 as the test period also appears insufficient to establish the robustness of 60-day global SST forecast skill. Multiple independent initialization dates and, preferably, multiple years should be evaluated.
- Observation-error covariance R
The manuscript appears to directly use the error variance associated with OISST to construct the observation-error covariance matrix R. Observation errors generally include not only instrumental/measurement errors but also representativeness errors. Therefore, directly using the provided OISST uncertainty as R may not adequately represent the total observation-error covariance. The authors should justify this point.
- Statistical significance and number of forecast experiments
The conclusions regarding differences in forecast RMSE/RMSD among the experiments should be supported by statistical testing.
At present, the number of independent forecast experiments appears to be unclear and may be effectively limited to a single forecast period. A single forecast trajectory is not sufficient to establish the statistical significance or robustness of differences between forecasting methods.The authors should conduct multiple independent forecast experiments with different initialization dates and report uncertainty estimates and appropriate statistical tests for differences in forecast errors.
A persistence forecast should also be included as an essential baseline for SST prediction.
- Forecast RMSE/RMSD in Figure 4b
The decrease in RMSD at approximately 50–60 days of forecast lead time requires explanation. Such a decrease may result from the spatial/temporal aggregation method, the definition of the verification metric, or other characteristics of the forecast system. The authors should provide the forecast-error evolution for multiple independent initialization dates and explain the physical and statistical reasons for the apparent decrease.
More generally, the results appear to indicate that forecast errors become nearly saturated after approximately 20–30 days. The authors should clarify whether the model retains meaningful predictive skill beyond this period and demonstrate this against appropriate baselines such as persistence and climatology.
- Very high ACC values in Figure 4c
The reported ACC values remain above 0.90 even at a 60-day lead time. This result requires substantial clarification and validation. The authors should provide a precise definition of ACC, including: the spatial domain over which ACC is calculated; and the climatological period used to calculate SST anomalies; whether the climatology is calculated independently of the test period. The manuscript should also compare the proposed forecast with persistence and climatological forecasts using exactly the same ACC definition.
In addition, spatial maps of SST anomalies and forecast errors at different lead times (e.g., 1, 30, and 60 days) would be useful for assessing whether the high ACC corresponds to genuine predictive skill or is primarily associated with large-scale SST structures.
- Definition of the forecast-assimilation cycle
At L321, the term “forecast assimilation cycle” is unclear. Data assimilation consists of forecast and analysis steps, and the terminology should be revised to clearly distinguish the forecast step, analysis step, and complete cycling procedure.
- Figure 5: forecast lead time versus assimilation cycle
In Figure 5, the horizontal axis is described as forecast lead time, while the plotted results appear to correspond to successive assimilation cycles. These are not necessarily equivalent quantities. The authors should clearly define the horizontal axis and explain whether each point represents a forecast lead time within a single forecast or the result of a successive cycling experiment. The figure caption should also explicitly identify the line colors and all plotted variables.
Furthermore, the deterministic forecast appears to diverge or “blow up” around 60 days and then terminate. The authors should explain the reason for this behavior and clarify whether the ensemble forecast remains stable under the same conditions.
## Minor comments
[Terminology and notation]
- Several symbols are not clearly defined when first introduced (e.g., \epsilon, v, n, m, and b). All symbols should be defined before or at their first use.
- Several terms appear to be inconsistent with standard terminology in the data assimilation literature. For example, “mode integration error” and “prediction perturbation matrix” at L115 should be reconsidered in favor of terminology such as “model error” and “forecast ensemble perturbation matrix,” if appropriate.
- “State-observation covariance matrix” and “observation-observation covariance matrix” should be defined consistently with standard EnKF terminology.
- Please revise the terminology throughout the manuscript to follow commonly used terminology in the data assimilation community.
[Section 1]
- As shown by Balmaseda et al. (2015; doi: 10.1080/1755876X.2015.1022329) and Martin et al. (2015; doi: 10.1080/1755876X.2015.1022055), variational data assimilation methods have been widely used in the ocean data assimilation community, whereas ensemble-based methods are used in a more limited number of operational ocean systems. The descriptions in the abstract and introduction should therefore be revised to accurately reflect the current state of ocean data assimilation.
- The statement concerning the availability of observations in the ocean interior should be clarified in the second paragraph.
- Both the accuracy of the initial conditions and the accuracy of the forecast model contribute to forecast accuracy. Therefore, the statement at L49 should be revised accordingly.
- The term “significantly” should be reserved for cases where an appropriate statistical test has been performed.
- L52–55: EnKF estimates a flow-dependent forecast-error covariance P^f, but its quality depends on ensemble size, sampling error, localization, and the treatment of model error. Therefore, it is not necessarily appropriate to state that P^f is always better than the background-error covariance used in variational methods.
- L64–66: The meaning of this statement is unclear. Please clarify.
- L67–68: Please explain more clearly how nonlinearity during the forecast step affects the analysis step in the Kalman-filter/EnKF framework.
- It would be useful to consolidate the citations to tables in the fifth paragraph of the Introduction.
[Section 2]
- L137: Please revise var x_{k|k}.
- L249–250: The meaning of this statement is unclear. Please clarify.
- L260: Please provide the version of GLORYS used in the study and correct the citation format.
- L270: Please provide the version of OISST used (e.g., AVHRR-only or another product/version).
- L270: Please clearly specify the role of OISST in the experiments, including whether it is used for training, initialization, assimilation, or independent verification.
- L284–285: Please clearly define the “test dataset,” including its period and its independence from the training and validation datasets.
- The description of the validation procedure in the first paragraph of subsection 4.1 should be moved to the Methods section.
- L290: Please clarify the terminology used for “RMSE.” If the quantity represents the difference between forecast and reference/analysis fields, the authors should consistently define the quantity and distinguish it from the actual, generally unknown forecast error.
- L295: The same daily climatology appears to be used for both the forecast anomaly and the reference anomaly. Please clarify the climatological definition, including the climatological period and whether the test period is included.
- L308: Please define precisely what is meant by “trend.”
[Figures]
- Figure 4: Please add/identify the Pred and En mean lines, or clearly explain why they are not shown.
- Figure 4 and other figures: Please clarify that “ensemble” refers to the ensemble mean if that is what is plotted.
- Figure 4: Please provide sufficient information to distinguish deterministic forecasts, ensemble members, and the ensemble mean.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3488-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 268 | 107 | 41 | 416 | 39 | 36 |
- HTML: 268
- PDF: 107
- XML: 41
- Total: 416
- BibTeX: 39
- EndNote: 36
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
The sites that you cite to access the data used in your study do not fulfil GMD’s requirements for a persistent data archive because:
-They do not appear to have a published policy for data preservation over many years or decades (some flexibility exists over the precise length of preservation, but the policy must exist).
-They do not appear to have a published mechanism for preventing authors from unilaterally removing material. Archives must have a policy which makes removal of materials only possible in exceptional circumstances and subject to an independent curatorial decision,
-They do not appear to issue a persistent identifier such as a DOI or Handle for each precise dataset.
If we have missed a published policy which does in fact address this matter satisfactorily, please post a response linking to it. If you have any questions about this issue, please post them in a reply. Also, if the size of the datasets used is too big (of the order of hundreds of GB or TBs) to share it in an appropriate repository, please, provide justification for it. Also, you must publish the output datasets produced in your work, and currently it is not clear if the Zenodo repository that you have cited include them. Please, clarify it.
The GMD review and publication process depends on reviewers and community commentators being able to access, during the discussion phase, the code and data on which a manuscript depends, and on ensuring the provenance of replicability of the published papers for years after their publication. Please, therefore, publish your code and data in one of the appropriate repositories and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and a permanent identifier for it (e.g. DOI)) as soon as possible. We cannot have manuscripts under discussion that do not comply with our policy.
Later, if the Topical Editor decides to continue with the review or publication process of your manuscript and you are requested to upload a new version of it, then The 'Code and Data Availability’ section of your manuscript must also be modified to cite the new repository locations, and corresponding references added to the bibliography.
I must note that if you do not fix this problem, we cannot continue with the peer-review process or accept your manuscript for publication in GMD.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor