Engineering topics

Tang, Ling

Publications and source records attributed to Tang, Ling.

3 records

NASA NTRS2016

Performance Metrics, Error Modeling, and Uncertainty Quantification

A common set of statistical metrics has been used to summarize the performance of models or measurements- the most widely used ones being bias, mean square error, and linear correlation coefficient. They assume linear, additive, Gaussian errors, and they are interdependent, incomplete, and incapable of directly quantifying uncertainty. The authors demonstrate that these metrics can be directly derived from the parameters of the simple linear error model. Since a correct error model captures the full error information, it is argued that the specification of a parametric error model should be an alternative to the metrics-based approach. The error-modeling methodology is applicable to both linear and nonlinear errors, while the metrics are only meaningful for linear errors. In addition, the error model expresses the error structure more naturally, and directly quantifies uncertainty. This argument is further explained by highlighting the intrinsic connections between the performance metrics, the error model, and the joint distribution between the data and the reference.

Quantification↗

NASA NTRS2013

Modeling Errors in Daily Precipitation Measurements: Additive or Multiplicative?

The definition and quantification of uncertainty depend on the error model used. For uncertainties in precipitation measurements, two types of error models have been widely adopted: the additive error model and the multiplicative error model. This leads to incompatible specifications of uncertainties and impedes intercomparison and application.In this letter, we assess the suitability of both models for satellite-based daily precipitation measurements in an effort to clarify the uncertainty representation. Three criteria were employed to evaluate the applicability of either model: (1) better separation of the systematic and random errors; (2) applicability to the large range of variability in daily precipitation; and (3) better predictive skills. It is found that the multiplicative error model is a much better choice under all three criteria. It extracted the systematic errors more cleanly, was more consistent with the large variability of precipitation measurements, and produced superior predictions of the error characteristics. The additive error model had several weaknesses, such as non constant variance resulting from systematic errors leaking into random errors, and the lack of prediction capability. Therefore, the multiplicative error model is a better choice.

Modeling↗

NASA NTRS2010

Transfer of Satellite Rainfall Uncertainty from Gauged to Ungauged Regions at Regional and Seasonal Timescales

Hydrologists and other users need to know the uncertainty of the satellite rainfall data sets across the range of time/space scales over the whole domain of the data set. Here, uncertainty' refers to the general concept of the deviation' of an estimate from the reference (or ground truth) where the deviation may be defined in multiple ways. This uncertainty information can provide insight to the user on the realistic limits of utility, such as hydrologic predictability, that can be achieved with these satellite rainfall data sets. However, satellite rainfall uncertainty estimation requires ground validation (GV) precipitation data. On the other hand, satellite data will be most useful over regions that lack GV data, for example developing countries. This paper addresses the open issues for developing an appropriate uncertainty transfer scheme that can routinely estimate various uncertainty metrics across the globe by leveraging a combination of spatially-dense GV data and temporally sparse surrogate (or proxy) GV data, such as the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Precipitation Radar and the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission Dual-Frequency Precipitation Radar. The TRMM Multi-satellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA) products over the US spanning a record of 6 years are used as a representative example of satellite rainfall. It is shown that there exists a quantifiable spatial structure in the uncertainty of satellite data for spatial interpolation. Probabilistic analysis of sampling offered by the existing constellation of passive microwave sensors indicate that transfer of uncertainty for hydrologic applications may be effective at daily time scales or higher during the GPM era. Finally, a commonly used spatial interpolation technique (kriging), that leverages the spatial correlation of estimation uncertainty, is assessed at climatologic, seasonal, monthly and weekly timescales. It is found that the effectiveness of kriging is sensitive to the type of uncertainty metric, time scale of transfer and the density of GV data within the transfer domain. Transfer accuracy is lowest at weekly timescales with the error doubling from monthly to weekly.However, at very low GV data density (<20% of the domain), the transfer accuracy is too low to show any distinction as a function of the timescale of transfer.

Tang, Ling↗