Evaluation of a stochastic weather generator for long-term ensemble streamflow forecasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resampling historical time series remains one of the main approaches used to generate long-term probabilistic streamflow forecasts, while there is a need to develop more flexible approaches taking into account non-stationarities. One possible approach is to use a modelling chain consisting of a stochastic weather generator and a hydrological model. However, the ability of this modelling chain to generate adequate probabilistic streamflows must first be evaluated. The aim of this paper is to compare the performance of a stochastic weather generator against resampling historical meteorological time series in order to produce ensemble streamflow forecasts. The comparison framework is based on 30 years of forecasts for a single Canadian watershed. Forecasts resulting from the two methods are evaluated using the continuous ranked probability score (CRPS) and rank histograms. Results indicate that while there are differences between the methods, they nevertheless perform similarly, thus showing that weather generators can be used as substitutes for resampling the historical past.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".