Impacts of Polarimetric Radar Observations on Hydrologic Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rainfall estimated from the polarimetric prototype of the Weather Surveillance Radar-1988 Doppler [WSR-88D (KOUN)] was evaluated using a dense Micronet rain gauge network for nine events on the Ft. Cobb research watershed in Oklahoma. The operation of KOUN and its upgrade to dual polarization was completed by the National Severe Storms Laboratory. Storm events included an extreme rainfall case from Tropical Storm Erin that had a 100-yr return interval. Comparisons with collocated Micronet rain gauge measurements indicated all six rainfall algorithms that used polarimetric observations had lower root-mean-squared errors and higher Pearson correlation coefficients than the conventional algorithm that used reflectivity factor alone when considering all events combined. The reflectivity based relation R(Z) was the least biased with an event-combined normalized bias of −9%. The bias for R(Z), however, was found to vary significantly from case to case and as a function of rainfall intensity. This variability was attributed to different drop size distributions (DSDs) and the presence of hail. The synthetic polarimetric algorithm R(syn) had a large normalized bias of −31%, but this bias was found to be stationary. To evaluate whether polarimetric radar observations improve discharge simulation, recent advances in Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation using the Hydrology Laboratory Research Distributed Hydrologic Model (HL-RDHM) were used. This Bayesian approach infers the posterior probability density function of model parameters and output predictions, which allows us to quantify HL-RDHM uncertainty. Hydrologic simulations were compared to observed streamflow and also to simulations forced by rain gauge inputs. The hydrologic evaluation indicated that all polarimetric rainfall estimators outperformed the conventional R(Z) algorithm, but only after their long-term biases were identified and corrected.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".