1,083
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Accounting for observation uncertainty and bias due to unresolved scales with the Schmidt-Kalman filter

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon
Pages 1-21 | Received 27 Nov 2019, Accepted 01 Sep 2020, Published online: 13 Nov 2020

Figures & data

Table 1. The filter matrices and vectors for the Optimal Kalman filter (OKF), reduced-state Kalman filter (RKF) and Schmidt Kalman filter (SKF). The equations for the three filters are obtained through substituting these terms into (3.1) - (3.4). As discussed in section 3.4, we note that while the SKF uses Hl in the innovation only, the complete observation operator is used in the calculation of Kl and D.

Table 2. Matrices and vectors used in the true error calculations for Case 1 and 2 described in sections 4.1 and 4.2. The tildes indicate true error covariances. Case 1 corresponds to analysing all scales and includes the OKF. Case 2 corresponds to analysing the large scales only and includes the RKF and SKF. The true analysis error equation, analysis error covariance and forecast error covariance for each case are obtained by substituting the corresponding components into Equationequations (4.1), (Equation4.2) and Equation(4.3) respectively.

Fig. 1. Contour plot of the values of Cs that give the minimum true large-scale analysis error variance at the final assimilated observation for the SKF for different ratios of Qs and RI.

Fig. 1. Contour plot of the values of Cs that give the minimum true large-scale analysis error variance at the final assimilated observation for the SKF for different ratios of Qs and RI.

Fig. 2. (a): The optimal Cs values when RI=0.1 (dashed line) and RI=0.5 (dotted line) as functions of Qs. The grey region shows all points between S (lower edge) and 2S (upper edge) for different values of Qs. (b): The effect of changing Cs on the final true large-scale analysis error covariance for the SKF (solid line) when Qs=0.35 and RI=0.1. Also shown are the OKF and RKF true large-scale analysis error variance (lower dashed line and upper dotted line respectively). The grey region shows all points between Cs=S (left edge) and Cs=2S (right edge). The optimal value of Cs (i.e. the minimum of the solid line) lies in this region.

Fig. 2. (a): The optimal Cs values when RI=0.1 (dashed line) and RI=0.5 (dotted line) as functions of Qs. The grey region shows all points between S (lower edge) and 2S (upper edge) for different values of Qs. (b): The effect of changing Cs on the final true large-scale analysis error covariance for the SKF (solid line) when Qs=0.35 and RI=0.1. Also shown are the OKF and RKF true large-scale analysis error variance (lower dashed line and upper dotted line respectively). The grey region shows all points between Cs=S (left edge) and Cs=2S (right edge). The optimal value of Cs (i.e. the minimum of the solid line) lies in this region.

Fig. 3. (a): Comparison of the RKF to the OKF in terms of relative error percentage given by Equationequation (6.1). (b): Comparison of the SKF with optimal Cs to the OKF at the final time-step in terms of relative error percentage.

Fig. 3. (a): Comparison of the RKF to the OKF in terms of relative error percentage given by Equationequation (6.1)(6.1) relative error percentage=|P˜RKF/SKFll,a−P˜OKFll,a|P˜OKFll,a×100%,(6.1) . (b): Comparison of the SKF with optimal Cs to the OKF at the final time-step in terms of relative error percentage.

Fig. 4. (a): Difference between the perceived and true analysis error variances at the final time-step for the SKF with optimal Cs. (b): Difference between the perceived and true analysis error variances at the final time-step for the RKF.

Fig. 4. (a): Difference between the perceived and true analysis error variances at the final time-step for the SKF with optimal Cs. (b): Difference between the perceived and true analysis error variances at the final time-step for the RKF.

Table 3. The filter matrices and vectors for the SKFbc and RKFbc. The equations for the the two filters are obtained through substituting these terms into Equation(3.1)Equation(3.4).

Fig. 5. (a): The large-scale analysis for the SKFbc (square markers) and SKF (diamond markers) obtained through assimilation of biased observations to recreate the true large-scale state (grey dashed line). For this realization the large-scale analysis mean-square-error for the SKFbc is 0.29 and for the SKF is 1.53. (b): The SKFbc bias analysis estimate (square markers) and the true small-scale state (grey dashed line) for the same realization as panel (a).

Fig. 5. (a): The large-scale analysis for the SKFbc (square markers) and SKF (diamond markers) obtained through assimilation of biased observations to recreate the true large-scale state (grey dashed line). For this realization the large-scale analysis mean-square-error for the SKFbc is 0.29 and for the SKF is 1.53. (b): The SKFbc bias analysis estimate (square markers) and the true small-scale state (grey dashed line) for the same realization as panel (a).

Fig. 6. The values of Cδ which give the minimum true large-scale analysis error variance at the end of the assimilation window for the SKFbc.

Fig. 6. The values of Cδ which give the minimum true large-scale analysis error variance at the end of the assimilation window for the SKFbc.

Fig. 7. (a): Comparison of the RKFbc to the OKF in terms of relative error percentage given by Equationequation (6.1). (b): Comparison of the SKFbc with optimal Cδ to the OKF at the final time-step in terms of relative error percentage.

Fig. 7. (a): Comparison of the RKFbc to the OKF in terms of relative error percentage given by Equationequation (6.1)(6.1) relative error percentage=|P˜RKF/SKFll,a−P˜OKFll,a|P˜OKFll,a×100%,(6.1) . (b): Comparison of the SKFbc with optimal Cδ to the OKF at the final time-step in terms of relative error percentage.