DOE OSTI2025
Climate models often exhibit biases in their precipitation predictions, particularly underestimating high-intensity events and overestimating low precipitation. Deep learning approaches offer promising solutions, but their epistemic uncertainty associated with a deep learning–based bias correction method has not previously been quantified for reliable downstream climate impact studies. While methods for capturing the epistemic uncertainty in deep learning frameworks exist, there is currently no consensus on the best method. In this work, we compare three uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods—Deep Ensembles (DEns), Monte Carlo Dropout (MCD), and Flipout—by assessing the reliability of their uncertainty estimates using standard measures such as sharpness and calibration. These UQ methods are applied to an existing deep learning precipitation bias correction model known as UFNet: a coupled U-Net and fully connected neural network. The methods utilized to assess the models’ uncertainties are 1) calibration, which ensures that the expected probabilities of the model align with reality and 2) sharpness, which is a measure of the precision of the model’s probabilistic predictions. Of the three UQ methods evaluated, the DEns and MCD methods demonstrated the best-calibrated performance (expected calibration error of 0.36 and 0.35, respectively), compared to Flipout (0.58). In contrast, Flipout had the sharpest predictions and the highest metric performance in bias correcting precipitation—especially for higher-order moments such as kurtosis with a spatial correlation of 72% compared to 32% and 55% spatial correlation for DEns and MCD, respectively. Of the three UQ methods, MCD was found to be the most suitable method for UQ purposes based on its calibration, sharpness, and computational requirements.