WRF Precipitation Performance and Predictability for Systematically Varied Parameterizations over Complex Terrain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Physics parameterizations in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model are systematically varied to investigate precipitation forecast performance over the complex terrain of southwest British Columbia (BC). Comparing a full year of modeling data from over 100 WRF configurations to station observations reveals sensitivities of precipitation intensity, season, location, grid resolution, and accumulation window. The choice of cumulus and microphysics parameterizations is most important. The WSM5 microphysics scheme yields competitive verification scores when compared to more sophisticated and computationally expensive parameterizations. Although the scale-aware Grell–Freitas cumulus parameterization performs better for summertime convective precipitation, the conventional Kain–Fritsch parameterization better simulates wintertime frontal precipitation, which contributes to the majority of the annual precipitation in southwest BC. Finer grid spacings have lower relative biases and a more realistic spread in precipitation intensity distribution, yet higher relative standard deviations of their errors—they produce finer spatial differences and local extrema. Finer resolutions produce the best fraction of correct-to-incorrect forecasts across all precipitation intensities, whereas the coarser 27-km domain yields the highest hit rates and equitable threat scores. Verification metrics improve greatly with longer accumulation windows—hourly precipitation values are prone to double-penalty issues, while longer accumulation windows compensate for timing errors but lose information about short-term precipitation intensities. This study provides insights regarding WRF precipitation performance in complex terrain across a wide variety of configurations, using metrics important to a range of end users.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".