Integration of Satellite Data, Physically-based Model, and Deep Neural Networks for Historical Terrestrial Water Storage Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Terrestrial water storage (TWS) is an essential part of the global water cycle. Long-term monitoring of observed and modeled TWS is fundamental to analyze droughts, floods, and other meteorological extreme events caused by the effects of climate change on the hydrological cycle. Over the past several decades, hydrologists have been applying physically-based global hydrological model (GHM) and land surface model (LSM) to simulate TWS and the water components (e.g., groundwater storage) composing TWS. However, the reliability of these physically-based models is often affected by uncertainties in climatic forcing data, model parameters, model structure, and mechanisms for physical process representations. Launched in March 2002, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite mission exclusively applies remote sensing techniques to measure the variations in TWS on a global scale. The mission length of GRACE, however, is too short to meet the requirements for analyzing long-term TWS. Therefore, lots of effort has been devoted to the reconstruction of GRACE-like TWS data during the pre-GRACE era. Data-driven methods, such as multilinear regression and machine learning, exhibit a great potential to improve TWS assessments by integrating GRACE observations and physically-based simulations. The advances in artificial intelligence enable adaptive learning of correlations between variables in complex spatiotemporal systems. As for GRACE reconstruction, the applicability of various deep learning techniques has not been well studied previously. Thus, in this study, three deep learning-based models are developed based on the LSM-simulated TWS, to reconstruct the historical TWS in the Canadian landmass from 1979 to 2002. The performance of the models is evaluated against the GRACE-observed TWS anomalies from 2002 to 2004, and 2014 to 2016. The trained models achieve a mean correlation coefficient of 0.96, with a mean RMSE of 53 mm. The results show that the LSM-based deep learning models significantly improve the match between original LSM simulations and GRACE observations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".