Simplifying a hydrological ensemble prediction system with a backward greedy selection of members – Part 1: Optimization criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Hydrological Ensemble Prediction Systems (HEPS), obtained by forcing rainfall-runoff models with Meteorological Ensemble Prediction Systems (MEPS), have been recognized as useful approaches to quantify uncertainties of hydrological forecasting systems. This task is complex both in terms of the coupling of information and computational time, which may create an operational barrier. The main objective of the current work is to assess the degree of simplification (reduction of the number of hydrological members) that can be achieved with a HEPS configured using 16 lumped hydrological models driven by the 50 weather ensemble forecasts from the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). Here, Backward Greedy Selection (BGS) is proposed to assess the weight that each model must represent within a subset that offers similar or better performance than a reference set of 800 hydrological members. These hydrological models' weights represent the participation of each hydrological model within a simplified HEPS which would issue real-time forecasts in a relatively short computational time. The methodology uses a variation of the k-fold cross-validation, allowing an optimal use of the information, and employs a multi-criterion framework that represents the combination of resolution, reliability, consistency, and diversity. Results show that the degree of reduction of members can be established in terms of maximum number of members required (complexity of the HEPS) or the maximization of the relationship between the different scores (performance).
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".