Assessing the National Water Model’s Streamflow Estimates Using a Multi-Decade Retrospective Dataset across the Contiguous United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study is to evaluate the performance of the National Water Model (NWM) in time and space across the contiguous United States. Retrospective streamflow simulations were compared to records from 3260 USGS gauging stations, considering both regulated and natural flow conditions. Statistical metrics, including Kling–Gupta efficiency, Percent Bias, Pearson Correlation Coefficient, Root Mean Squared Error, and Normalized Root Mean Squared Error, were employed to assess the agreement between observed and simulated streamflow. A comparison of historical trends in daily flow data between the model and observed streamflow provided additional insight into the utility of retrospective NWM datasets. Our findings demonstrate a superior agreement between the simulated and observed streamflow for natural flow in comparison to regulated flow. The most favorable agreement between the NWM estimates and observed data was achieved in humid regions during the winter season, whereas a reduced degree of agreement was observed in the Great Plains region. Enhancements to model performance for regulated flow are necessary, and bias correction is crucial for utilizing the NWM retrospective streamflow dataset. The study concludes that the model-agnostic NextGen NWM framework, which accounts for regional performance of the utilized model, could be more suitable for continental-scale hydrologic prediction.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".