Papers › From Many to One: Consensus Inference in a MIP
From Many to One: Consensus Inference in a MIP
Noel Cressie, Michael Bertolacci, Andrew Zammit-Mangion
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
A Model Intercomparison Project (MIP) consists of teams who each estimate the same underlying quantity (e.g., temperature projections to the year 2070), and the spread of the estimates indicates their uncertainty. It recognizes that a community of scientists will not agree completely but that there is value in looking for a consensus and information in the range of disagreement. A simple average of the teams' outputs gives a consensus estimate, but it does not recognize that some outputs are more variable than others. Statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) models offer a way to obtain a weighted consensus estimate of outputs with a variance that is the smallest possible and hence the tightest possible 'one-sigma' and 'two-sigma' intervals. Modulo dependence between MIP outputs, the ANOVA approach weights a team's output inversely proportional to its variation. When external verification data are available for evaluating the fidelity of each MIP output, ANOVA weights can also provide a prior distribution for Bayesian Model Averaging to yield a consensus estimate. We use a MIP of carbon dioxide flux inversions to illustrate the ANOVA-based weighting and subsequent consensus inferences.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections