Can a multi-model approach improve hydrological ensemble forecasting? A study on 29 French catchments using 16 hydrological model structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. An operational hydrological ensemble forecasting system based on a meteorological ensemble prediction system (M-EPS) coupled with a hydrological model searches to capture the uncertainties associated with the meteorological prediction to better predict river flows. However, the structure of the hydrological model is also an important source of uncertainty that has to be taken into account. This study aims at evaluating and comparing the performance and the reliability of different types of hydrological ensemble prediction systems (H-EPS), when ensemble weather forecasts are combined with a multi-model approach. The study is based on 29 catchments in France and 16 lumped hydrological model structures, driven by the weather forecasts from the European centre for medium-range weather forecasts (ECMWF). Results show that the ensemble predictions produced by a combination of several hydrological model structures and meteorological ensembles have higher skill and reliability than ensemble predictions given either by one single hydrological model fed by weather ensemble predictions or by several hydrological models and a deterministic meteorological forecast.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".