Evaluation and Bias Correction of S2S Precipitation for Hydrological Extremes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Subseasonal to seasonal (S2S) weather forecasting has made significant advances and several products have been made available. However, to date few studies utilize these products to extend the hydrological forecast time range. This study evaluates S2S precipitation from eight model ensembles in the hydrological simulation of extreme events at the catchment scale. A superior bias correction method is used to correct the bias of S2S precipitation for hydrological forecasts, and the results are compared with direct bias correction of hydrological forecasts using raw precipitation forecasts as input. The study shows that the S2S models can skillfully forecast daily precipitation within a lead time of 11 days. The S2S precipitation data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA), and United Kingdom’s Met Office (UKMO) models present lower mean error than that of other models and have higher correlation coefficients with observations. Precipitation data from the ECMWF, KMA, and UKMO models also perform better than that of other models in simulating multiple-day precipitation processes. The bias correction method effectively reduces the mean error of daily S2S precipitation for all models while also improving the correlation with observations. Moreover, this study found that the bias correction procedure can apply to either precipitation or streamflow simulations for improving the hydrological forecasts, even though the degree of improvement is dependent on the hydrological variables. Overall, S2S precipitation has a potential to be applied for hydrological forecasts, and a superior bias correction method can increase the forecasts’ reliability, although further studies are still needed to confirm its effect.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".