Assessing the applicability of six precipitation probability distribution models on the Loess Plateau of China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Stochastic modelling of daily precipitation is useful for many hydrological and agricultural applications; however, the ability of the precipitation generator should be assessed to ensure accurate precipitation simulation. In particular, the appropriate choice of a precipitation probability distribution is of utmost importance. The Loess Plateau in China has a semi‐arid climate with strong monsoon influence and contains some of the most erodible soils in the world. The large annual variability in precipitation and the common occurrence of very large rainfall events makes this region very challenging for stochastic generation of precipitation. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to compare the performances of six precipitation probability distributions (exponential, gamma, Weibull, skewed normal, mixed exponential and hybrid exponential/generalized Pareto distributions) on the Loess Plateau of China based on daily precipitation data of 47 stations during 1961–2009. Results indicate that using increasingly more complex precipitation distributions contribute to more accurate precipitation simulation. However, none of the tested distributions is able to simulate all the observed statistical characteristics of precipitation. The three‐parameter models are superior to simulating the observed mean and variance. The hybrid exponential/generalized Pareto distribution is the best at simulating the frequency distributions and interannual variations of precipitation while the skewed normal distribution performs the best in reproducing extreme precipitation events. Overall, as erosion on the Loess Plateau is highly dependent on extreme precipitation, the skewed normal distribution may be the best candidate and therefore is recommended on the Loess Plateau.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".