Skip to article frontmatterSkip to article content
Site not loading correctly?

This may be due to an incorrect BASE_URL configuration. See the MyST Documentation for reference.

L96 benchmark — analysis-then-forecast across 10 Lyapunov times

Every method assimilates obs on the 0.5-time-unit window then is free-forecast for 4.5 more time units (10 L96 Lyapunov times total). The Hovmöller plots and the RMSE(t) trace below are directly comparable to PyDA’s L96 EnKF demo.

1. Shared problem

K=40, T_assim=50, T_total=250
obs in assim window: 110 scalars

2. Classical methods

oi                   assim=  3.925  forecast=  4.212  total=  4.156
3dvar                assim=  3.925  forecast=  4.212  total=  4.156
strong_4dvar         assim=  3.744  forecast=  4.142  total=  4.064
incremental_4dvar    assim=  4.629  forecast=  5.121  total=  5.025

3. Learned methods

FourDVarNet train: 100.3s, rmse_forecast=4.733
Amortized train: 7.8s, rmse_forecast=4.481

4. Comparison table

Loading...

5. Hovmöller — truth, then each method

Each panel is a (time × grid) Hovmöller diagram. Methods with good x0x_0 recovery produce panels that look identical to the truth across the full window; bad analyses give panels that diverge from truth after a Lyapunov time.

<Figure size 1100x1050 with 7 Axes>

6. RMSE(t) — the dynamics view

<Figure size 1100x500 with 1 Axes>

7. Headline numbers

Same story shape as L63 but with the L96 scaling: dynamics-aware methods produce launch states that hold the forecast for several Lyapunov times; OI / 3DVar’s noisy analyses produce forecasts that diverge within one Lyapunov time.