Accounting for three sources of uncertainty in ensemble hydrological forecasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Seeking more accuracy and reliability, the hydrometeorological community has developed several tools to decipher the different sources of uncertainty in relevant modeling processes. Among them, the ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF), multimodel approaches and meteorological ensemble forecasting proved to have the capability to improve upon deterministic hydrological forecast. This study aims to untangle the sources of uncertainty by studying the combination of these tools and assessing their respective contribution to the overall forecast quality. Each of these components is able to capture a certain aspect of the total uncertainty and improve the forecast at different stages in the forecasting process by using different means. Their combination outperforms any of the tools used solely. The EnKF is shown to contribute largely to the ensemble accuracy and dispersion, indicating that the initial conditions uncertainty is dominant. However, it fails to maintain the required dispersion throughout the entire forecast horizon and needs to be supported by a multimodel approach to take into account structural uncertainty. Moreover, the multimodel approach contributes to improving the general forecasting performance and prevents this performance from falling into the model selection pitfall since models differ strongly in their ability. Finally, the use of probabilistic meteorological forcing was found to contribute mostly to long lead time reliability. Particular attention needs to be paid to the combination of the tools, especially in the EnKF tuning to avoid overlapping in error deciphering.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".