1 / 79

Adjoint Models as Analytical Tools

Adjoint Models as Analytical Tools. Dr. Ronald M. Errico Goddard Earth Sciences and Technology Center (UMBC) Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (NASA). Outline. 1. Sensitivity analysis: The basis for adjoint model applications 2. Examples of adjoint-derived sensitivity

ull
Télécharger la présentation

Adjoint Models as Analytical Tools

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Adjoint Models as Analytical Tools Dr. Ronald M. Errico Goddard Earth Sciences and Technology Center (UMBC) Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (NASA)

  2. Outline 1. Sensitivity analysis: The basis for adjoint model applications 2. Examples of adjoint-derived sensitivity 3. Code construction: an example 4. Nonlinear validation 5. Efficient solution of optimization problems 6. Adjoint models as paradigm changers 7. Singular vectors 8. Observation sensitivity 9. Other applications 10. Other considerations 11. Summary

  3. Sensitivity Analysis: The basis for adjoint model applications Impacts vs. Sensitivity

  4. xi xj

  5. Adjoint Sensitivity Analysis Impacts vs. Sensitivities A single impact study yields exact response measures (J) for all forecast aspects with respect to the particular perturbation investigated. A single adjoint-derived sensitivity yields linearized estimates of the particular measure (J) investigated with respect to all possible perturbations.

  6. Examples of Adjoint-Derived Sensitivities

  7. Example Sensitivity Field Errico and Vukicevic 1992 MWR Contour interval 0.02 Pa/m M=0.1 Pa/m

  8. Lewis et al. 2001

  9. J=average surface pressure in a small box centered at P J=barotropic component of vorticity at point P From Errico and Vukicevic 1992

  10. Development of Adjoint Model From Line by Line Analysis of Computer Code

  11. Development of Adjoint Model From Line by Line Analysis of Computer Code

  12. Development of Adjoint Model From Line by Line Analysis of Computer Code Y = X * (W**A) Z = Y * X Parent NLM : Ytlm = Xtlm * (W**A) + Wtlm *A* X *(W**(A-1)) Ztlm = Ytlm * X + Xtlm * Y TLM : Xadj = Xadj + Zadj * Y Yadj = Yadj + Zadj * X Xadj = Xadj + Yadj * (W**A) Wadj = Wadj + Yadj * X *(W**(A-1)) Adjoint :

  13. Development of Adjoint Model From Line by Line Analysis of Computer Code Y = X * (W**A) Z = Y * X Parent NLM : Ytlm = Xtlm * (W**A) + Wtlm *A* X *(W**(A-1)) Ztlm = Ytlm * X + Xtlm * Y TLM : Xadj = Xadj + Zadj * Y Yadj = Yadj + Zadj * X Xadj = Xadj + Yadj * (W**A) Wadj = Wadj + Yadj * X *(W**(A-1)) Adjoint :

  14. Development of Adjoint Model From Line by Line Analysis of Computer Code Automatic Differentiation TAMC Ralf Giering (superceded by TAF) TAF FastOpt.com ADIFOR Rice University TAPENADE INRIA, Nice OPENAD Argonne Others www.autodiff.org See http://imgi.uibk.ac.at/MEhrendorfer/ work_7/present/session3/giering.pdf

  15. Development of Adjoint Model From Line by Line Analysis of Computer Code • TLM and Adjoint models are straight-forward to derive from • NLM code, and actually simpler to develop. • Intelligent approximations can be made to improve efficiency. • TLM and (especially) Adjoint codes are simple to test rigorously. • 4. Some outstanding errors and problems in the NLM are typically • revealed when the TLM and Adjoint are developed from it. • 5. It is best to start from clean NLM code. • 6. The TLM and Adjoint can be formally correct but useless!

  16. Nonlinear Validation Does the TLM or Adjoint model tell us anything about the behavior of meaningful perturbations in the nonlinear model that may be of interest?

  17. Linear vs. Nonlinear Results in Moist Model 24-hour SV1 from case W1 Initialized with T’=1K Final ps field shown Errico and Raeder 1999 QJRMS Contour interval 0.5 hPa

  18. Linear vs. Nonlinear Results in Moist Model Non-Conv Precip. ci=0.5mm Non-Conv Precip. ci=0.5mm Convective Precip. ci=2mm Convective Precip. ci=2mm

  19. Comparison of TLM and Nonlinearly Produced Precip Rates 12-Hour Forecasts with SV#1 Non- Convective Linear Nonlinear Convective. Linear Nonlinear Errico et al. QJRMS 2004 Contours: 0.1, 0.3, 1., 3., 10. mm/day

  20. Linear vs. Nonlinear Results • In general, agreement between TLM and NLM results • will depend on: • Amplitude of perturbations • Stability properties of the reference state • Structure of perturbations • Physics involved • Time period over which perturbation evolves • Measure of agreement The agreement of the TLM and NLM is exactly that of the Adjoint and NLM if the Adjoint is exact with respect to the TLM.

  21. Efficient solution of optimization problems

  22. Contours of J in phase (x) space Gradient at point P P M

  23. Adjoint models as paradigm changers

  24. Sensitivity field for J=ps with respect to T for an idealized cyclone 100 hPa 500 hPa 1000 hPa From Langland and Errico 1996 MWR

  25. Bao and Errico: MWR 1997 Adjoint of Nudging Fields Contour 0.1 unit Contour 1.0 unit

  26. t=0 0.4 units t=48 hours 5.0 units Errico et al. Tellus 1993

  27. What is the modeled precipitation rate sensitive to? Errico, Raeder, Fillion: 2003 Tellus Non-Convective Forecast Precipitation Rate Contour interval 2 cm/day

  28. Vort optimized Impacts for adjoint- derived optimal perturbations for forecasts starting indicated hours in the past. Errico et al. 2003 Tellus Rn Optimized Rc optimized

  29. Perturbations in Different Fields Can Produce the Same Result 12-hour v TLM forecasts Initial u, v, T, ps Perturbation Initial q Perturbation Errico et al. QJRMS 2004

  30. Singular Vectors

  31. Gelaro et al. MWR 2000

  32. Bred Modes (LVs) And SVs Results for Leading 10 SVs Gelaro et al. QJRMS 2002

  33. Balance of Singular Vectors Vertical modes of the 10-level MAMS model (from Errico, 2000 QJRMS)

  34. Balance of Singular Vectors E=E_t, K=KE, A=APE, R=R mode E, G=G mode E A,G E,K,R t=0 t=24 hours Errico 2000

  35. The Balance of Singular Vectors Contour 2 units Initial R mode Initial G mode Contour 1 unit Errico 2000

  36. How Many SVs are Growing Ones? EM E-norm Moist Model ED E-norm Dry Model TM R-norm Moist Model TD R-norm Dry Model Singular Value Squared Errico et al. Tellus 2001 Mode Index

  37. From Novakovskaia et al. 2007 and Errico et al. 2007

  38. Sensitivity to Observations The use of an adjoint of a data analysis algorithm

More Related