Documentation of the Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long ...

CTEX3 discussed in Section 5.4.1. As noted in Table 5‐6, CTEX5 CALPUFF sensitivity tests were
not performed for the EXP1 and EXP2 series of experiments.
5.4.1.1 CALPUFF CTEX5 Model Evaluation using 80 km MM5 Data
The spatial model performance statistics for the CTEX5 CALPUFF sensitivity tests using the 80
km MM5 data are shown in Figure 5‐10. The BASEA and BASEB sensitivity tests are performing
the best followed by BASEC, then BASED with 80KM_MMIF coming in last.
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
BASE A
BASE A
Probability of Detection (POD)
(Perfect = 100%)
BASE B
BASE B
BASE C
Threat Score (TS)
(Perfect = 100%)
BASE C
BASE D
BASE D
80K MMIF
80K MMIF
Figure 5‐10. Spatial model performance statistics for the CTEX5 CALPUF sensitivity tests that
used the 80 km MM5 data.
Although 80KM_MMIF has the lowest FOEX statistic, for all the other global statistic it is the
worst or almost worst performing CALPUFF sensitivity test using 80 km MM5 data. BASEA has
the best bias, error, FA2 and FA5 statistics of this group with either BASEB or BASEC coming in
second and then BASED next to last and 80KM_MMIF last. The RANK composite statistics ranks
BASEA (2.06) and BASEC (2.05) the highest followed by BASEB (1.82) and BASED (1.79) next and
80KM_MMIF (1.42) in last.
88
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Figure of Metric in Space (FMS)
(Perfect = 100%)
BASE A
BASE A
BASE B
BASE C
BASE D
False Alarm Rate (FAR)
(Perfect = 0%)
BASE B
BASE C
BASE D
80K MMIF
80K MMIF