MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1635474621

Comparison of the performance and reliability of 18 lumped hydrological models driven by ECMWF rainfall ensemble forecasts: a case study on 29 French catchments

2010· preprint· en· W1635474621 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. A. Velázquez, François Anctil, Maria‐Helena Ramos, Charles Perrin

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2010
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicRobustness (evolution)MeteorologyEnsemble forecastingHydrological modellingEnvironmental scienceEnsemble averageProbabilistic forecastingClimatologyContext (archaeology)Computer scienceGeographyArtificial intelligenceGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)→Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→French-language works237,207→