Comparison of the performance and reliability of 18 lumped hydrological models driven by ECMWF rainfall ensemble forecasts: a case study on 29 French catchments
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
An ensemble forecasting system seeks to assess and to communicate the uncertainty of hydrological predictions by proposing, at each time step, an ensemble of forecasts from which one can estimate the probability distribution of the predictant (the probabilistic forecast), in contrast with a single estimate of the flow, for which no distribution is obtainable (the deterministic forecast). In the past years, efforts towards the development of probabilistic hydrological prediction systems were made with the adoption of ensembles of numerical weather predictions (NWPs). The additional information provided by the different available Ensemble Prediction Systems (EPS) was evaluated in a hydrological context on various case studies (see the review by Cloke and Pappenberger, 2009). For example, the European ECMWF-EPS was explored in case studies by Roulin et al. (2005), Bartholmes et al. (2005), Jaun et al. (2008), and Renner et al. (2009). The Canadian EC-EPS was also evaluated by Velázquez et al. (2009). Most of these case studies investigate the ensemble predictions of a given hydrological model, set up over a limited number of catchments. Uncertainty from weather predictions is assessed through the use of meteorological ensembles. However, uncertainty from the tested hydrological model and statistical robustness of the forecasting system when coping with different hydro-meteorological conditions are less frequently evaluated. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the performance and the reliability of 18 lumped hydrological models applied to a large number of catchments in an operational ensemble forecasting context. Some of these models were evaluated in a previous study (Perrin et al. 2001) for their ability to simulate streamflow. Results demonstrated that very simple models can achieve a level of performance almost as high (sometimes higher) as models with more parameters. In the present study, we focus on the ability of the hydrological models to provide reliable probabilistic forecasts of streamflow, based on ensemble weather predictions. The models were therefore adapted to run in a forecasting mode, i.e., to update initial conditions according to the last observed discharge at the time of the forecast, and to cope with ensemble weather scenarios. All models are lumped, i.e., the hydrological behavior is integrated over the spatial scale of the catchment, and run at daily time steps. The complexity of tested models varies between 3 and 13 parameters. The models are tested on 29 French catchments. Daily streamflow time series extend over 17 months, from March 2005 to July 2006. Catchment areas range between 1470 km2 and 9390 km2, and represent a variety of hydrological and meteorological conditions. The 12 UTC 10-day ECMWF rainfall ensemble (51 members) was used, which led to daily streamflow forecasts for a 9-day lead time. In order to assess the performance and reliability of the hydrological ensemble predictions, we computed the Continuous Ranked probability Score (CRPS) (Matheson andWinkler, 1976), as well as the reliability diagram (e.g. Wilks, 1995) and the rank histogram (Talagrand et al., 1999). Since the ECMWF deterministic forecasts are also available, the performance of the hydrological forecasting systems was also evaluated by comparing the deterministic score (MAE) with the probabilistic score (CRPS). The results obtained for the 18 hydrological models and the 29 studied catchments are discussed in the perspective of improving the operational use of ensemble forecasting in hydrology.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».