Revisiting measurement and representation errors in geophysical sciences: From classical collocation‐based measurement error estimation to “sampling‐aware field‐informed retrieval”, a method that explicitly accounts for representation errors

Abstract The quantities of interest in geosciences (e.g., atmospheric wind, rock porosity) typically exhibit structure across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. As a result, it is insufficient to define measurement errors as some deviations from a reference truth. The main issue is that different instruments and models filter reality in distinct ways. Without a precise mathematical description of this filtering, the exact nature of measurement, model, and representation errors remains unclear. To address this, a measurement model that specifies which geophysical field is being sampled and where is proposed. Based on this model, formal definitions for measurement, model, and representation errors are given. The distinction between these types of errors is also discussed. A novel aspect of this study is the demonstration of conditions under which measurement and representation errors will be correlated with one another. Using this new framework, two common measurement error estimation methods, namely the triple‐cornered hat and triple collocation, are shown to be special cases of a more general approach, called sampling‐aware field‐informed retrieval, that explicitly accounts for representation error. Idealized experiments are conducted to illustrate how this general approach performs in various measurement error estimation scenarios involving representation errors. In the more realistic scenarios where observations originate from differently sized sampling windows and are not perfectly collocated with one another, it is shown that estimating measurement errors is possible only if representation errors are accounted for. It is also demonstrated that displacement errors must be taken into account to avoid correlations between measurement and representation errors. More generally, this study advocates that the formulation of a measurement model is necessary for the measurement and representation errors to be clearly defined.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
Published
2025-09-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.5073
Primary Topic
Seismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Revisiting measurement and representation errors in geophysical sciences: From classical collocation‐based measurement error estimation to “sampling‐aware field‐informed retrieval”, a method that explicitly accounts for representation errors

Dominik Jacques
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
Seismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
article

Revisiting measurement and representation errors in geophysical sciences: From classical collocation‐based measurement error estimation to “sampling‐aware field‐informed retrieval”, a method that explicitly accounts for representation errors

Dominik Jacques
article en

Abstract

Abstract The quantities of interest in geosciences (e.g., atmospheric wind, rock porosity) typically exhibit structure across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. As a result, it is insufficient to define measurement errors as some deviations from a reference truth. The main issue is that different instruments and models filter reality in distinct ways. Without a precise mathematical description of this filtering, the exact nature of measurement, model, and representation errors remains unclear. To address this, a measurement model that specifies which geophysical field is being sampled and where is proposed. Based on this model, formal definitions for measurement, model, and representation errors are given. The distinction between these types of errors is also discussed. A novel aspect of this study is the demonstration of conditions under which measurement and representation errors will be correlated with one another. Using this new framework, two common measurement error estimation methods, namely the triple‐cornered hat and triple collocation, are shown to be special cases of a more general approach, called sampling‐aware field‐informed retrieval, that explicitly accounts for representation error. Idealized experiments are conducted to illustrate how this general approach performs in various measurement error estimation scenarios involving representation errors. In the more realistic scenarios where observations originate from differently sized sampling windows and are not perfectly collocated with one another, it is shown that estimating measurement errors is possible only if representation errors are accounted for. It is also demonstrated that displacement errors must be taken into account to avoid correlations between measurement and representation errors. More generally, this study advocates that the formulation of a measurement model is necessary for the measurement and representation errors to be clearly defined.

Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietyVol. 151(773)
Environment and Climate Change Canada (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Seismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Revisiting measurement and representation errors in geophysical sciences: From classical collocation‐based measurement error estimation to “sampling‐aware field‐informed retrieval”, a method that explicitly accounts for representation errors — Dominik Jacques · Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS