Quantitative Evaluations and Error Source Analysis of Fengyun-2-Based and GPM-Based Precipitation Products over Mainland China in Summer, 2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Satellite-based quantitative precipitation estimates (QPE) with a fine quality are of great importance to global water cycle and matter and energy exchange research. In this study, we firstly apply various statistical indicators to evaluate and compare the main current satellite-based precipitation products from Chinese Fengyun (FY)-2 and the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM), respectively, over mainland China in summer, 2018. We find that (1) FY-2G QPE and Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM (IMERG) perform significantly better than FY-2E QPE, using rain gauge data, with correlation coefficients (CC) varying from 0.65 to 0.90, 0.80 to 0.90, and 0.40 to 0.53, respectively; (2) IMERG agrees well with rain gauge data at monthly scale, while it performs worse than FY-2G QPE at hourly and daily scales, which may be caused by its algorithms; (3) FY-2G QPE underestimates the precipitation in summer, while FY-2E QPE and IMERG generally overestimate the precipitation; (4) there is an interesting error phenomenon in that both FY-based and GPM-based precipitation products perform more poorly during the period from 06:00 to 10:00 UTC than other periods at diurnal scale; and (5) FY-2G QPE agrees well with IMERG in terms of spatial patterns and consistency (CC of ~0.81). These findings can provide valuable preliminary references for improving next generation satellite-based QPE retrieval algorithms and instructions for applying these data in various practical fields.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".