One of the exciting aspects of leading a university research group is that you can never be quite sure where the research is going next. We published a nice example of this unpredictability last week in Royal Society Open Science in a paper called ‘Transformation of measurement uncertainties into low-dimensional feature space‘ . While the title is an accurate description of the contents, it does not give much away and certainly does not reveal that we proposed a new method for assessing the occurrence of El Niño events. For some time we have been working with massive datasets of measurements from arrays of sensors and representing them by fitting polynomials in a process known as image decomposition [see ‘Recognising strain‘ on October 28th, 2015]. The relatively small number of coefficients from these polynomials can be collated into a feature vector which facilitates comparison with other datasets [see for example, ‘Out of the valley of death into a hype cycle‘ on February 24th, 2021]. Our recent paper provides a solution to the issue of representing the measurement uncertainty in the same space as the feature vector which is roughly what we set out to do. We demonstrated our new method for representing the measurement uncertainty by calibrating and validating a computational model of a simple beam in bending using data from an earlier study in a EU-funded project called VANESSA  — so no surprises there. However, then my co-author and PhD student, Antonis Alexiadis went looking for other interesting datasets with which to demonstrate the new method. He found a set of spatially-varying uncertainties associated with a metamodel of soil moisture in a river basin in China  and global oceanographic temperature fields collected monthly over 11 years from 2002 to 2012 . We used the latter set of data to develop a new technique for assessing the occurrence of El-Niño events in the Pacific Ocean. Our technique is based on global ocean dynamics rather than on the small region in the Pacific Ocean which is usually used and has the added advantages of providing a confidence level on the assessment as well as enabling straightforward comparisons of predictions and measurements. The comparison of predictions and measurements is a recurring theme in our current research but I did not expect it to lead into ocean dynamics.
Image is Figure 11 from  showing convex hulls fitted to the cloud of points representing the uncertainty intervals for the ocean temperature measurements for each month in 2002 using only the three most significant principal components . The lack of overlap between hulls can be interpreted as implying a significant difference in the temperature between months.
 Alexiadis, A. and Ferson, S. and Patterson, E.A., , 2021. Transformation of measurement uncertainties into low-dimensional feature vector space. Royal Society Open Science, 8(3): 201086.
 Lampeas G, Pasialis V, Lin X, Patterson EA. 2015. On the validation of solid mechanics models using optical measurements and data decomposition. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 52, 92-107.
 Kang J, Jin R, Li X, Zhang Y. 2017, Block Kriging with measurement errors: a case study of the spatial prediction of soil moisture in the middle reaches of Heihe River Basin. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 14, 87-91.
 Gaillard F, Reynaud T, Thierry V, Kolodziejczyk N, von Schuckmann K. 2016. In situ-based reanalysis of the global ocean temperature and salinity with ISAS: variability of the heat content and steric height. J. Climate. 29, 1305-1323.
Pingback: Jigsaw puzzling without a picture | Realize Engineering
Pingback: Diving into three-dimensional fluids | Realize Engineering
Pingback: Nudging discoveries along the innovation path | Realize Engineering