Leveraging ensemble meteorological forcing data to improve parameter estimation of hydrologic models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As continental to global scale high‐resolution meteorological datasets continue to be developed, there are sufficient meteorological datasets available now for modellers to construct a historical forcing ensemble. The forcing ensemble can be a collection of multiple deterministic meteorological datasets or come from an ensemble meteorological dataset. In hydrological model calibration, the forcing ensemble can be used to represent forcing data uncertainty. This study examines the potential of using the forcing ensemble to identify more robust parameters through model calibration. Specifically, we compare an ensemble forcing‐based calibration with two deterministic forcing‐based calibrations and investigate their flow simulation and parameter estimation properties and the ability to resist poor‐quality forcings. The comparison experiment is conducted with a six‐parameter hydrological model for 30 synthetic studies and 20 real data studies to provide a better assessment of the average performance of the deterministic and ensemble forcing‐based calibrations. Results show that the ensemble forcing‐based calibration generates parameter estimates that are less biased and have higher frequency of covering the true parameter values than the deterministic forcing‐based calibration does. Using a forcing ensemble in model calibration reduces the risk of inaccurate flow simulation caused by poor‐quality meteorological inputs, and improves the reliability and overall simulation skill of ensemble simulation results. The poor‐quality meteorological inputs can be effectively filtered out via our ensemble forcing‐based calibration methodology and thus discarded in any post‐calibration model applications. The proposed ensemble forcing‐based calibration method can be considered as a more generalized framework to include parameter and forcing uncertainties in model calibration.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".