Combining large-scale and regional hydrological forecasts using simple methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development and expanded application of large-scale hydrological models has produced forecasts that often overlap with more targeted, regional hydrological forecasts. Here the possibility is explored for using simple methods to combine forecasts from a large-scale model, the Great Lakes portion of the National Surface and River Prediction System (NSRPS), and a regional system, the Système de Prévision Hydrologique (SPH) which covers southern Quebec, to improve regional forecasts. Outputs from the two forecasting systems are combined using multiple methods, including the simple mean, a weighted average in which the weights are optimized using the Kling-Gupta Efficiency (KGE), the Reduced Continuous Ranked Probability Score (RCRPS), and Ignorance Score (IGN) as cost functions, and weights calculated from the residual errors of the models. Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) is also used to combine the probabilistic forecasts from both systems. The results show that it is possible to improve regional hydrological forecasts by using simple weighted combinations with forecasts from the large-scale system, even though the regional system performs clearly better. Performance is assessed via many well-known metrics, such as Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE), KGE, RCRPS, and IGN. Results are averaged over 40 gauging stations and analyzed at lead times from 3 to 120 h. Improvements in all criteria for lead times over 60 h are observed, and there is no loss in performance at any lead times. Finally, the methods are used in a leave-one-out setup containing 29 validation basins to simulate performance on ungauged basins. The performance gain for ungauged basins is similar to that of the gauged basins, demonstrating that these simple methods can also improve forecasts in more remote territories where no gauging is available.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".