Use of Radar Quantitative Precipitation Estimates (QPEs) for Improved Hydrological Model Calibration and Flood Forecasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Flood forecasting is essential to minimize the impacts and costs of floods, especially in urbanized watersheds. Radar rainfall estimates are becoming increasingly popular in flood forecasting because they provide the much-needed real-time spatially distributed precipitation information. The current study evaluates the use of radar Quantitative Precipitation Estimates (QPEs) in hydrological model calibration for streamflow simulation and flood mapping in an urban setting. Firstly, S-band and C-band radar QPEs were integrated into event-based hydrological models to improve the calibration of model parameters. Then, rain gauge and radar precipitation estimates’ performances were compared for hydrological modeling in an urban watershed to assess radar QPE's effects on streamflow simulation accuracy. Finally, flood extent maps were produced using coupled hydrological-hydraulic models integrated within the Hydrologic Engineering Center- Real-Time Simulation (HEC-RTS) framework. It is shown that the bias correction of radar QPEs can enhance the hydrological model calibration. The radar-gauge merging obtained a KGE, MPFC, NSE, and VE improvement of about + 0.42, + 0.12, + 0.78, and − 0.23, respectively for S-band and + 0.64, + 0.36, + 1.12, and − 0.34, respectively for C-band radar QPEs. Merged radar QPEs are also helpful in running hydrological models calibrated using gauge data. The HEC-RTS framework can be used to produce flood forecast maps using the bias-corrected radar QPEs. Therefore, radar rainfall estimates could be efficiently used to forecast floods in urbanized areas for effective flood management and mitigation. Canadian flood forecasting systems could be efficiently updated by integrating bias-corrected radar QPEs to simulate streamflow and produce flood inundation maps.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".