Improving rainfall-runoff modeling in the Mekong river basin using bias-corrected satellite precipitation products by convolutional neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate rainfall-runoff (RR) modeling is crucial for effective Mekong River Basin (MRB) water resource management. Satellite precipitation products (SPPs) can offer valuable data for such modeling; however, these products often exhibit biases that may adversely affect hydrological simulations. This study aimed to improve RR modeling using bias-corrected SPPs and the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model for MRB. A convolutional neural network-based deep learning framework was employed to correct biases in four SPPs (TRMM, PERSIANN-CDR, CHIRPS, and CMORPH), resulting in four respective bias-corrected SPPs (ADJ_TRMM, ADJ_CDR, ADJ_CHIR, and ADJ_CMOR). The bias-corrected products were compared against a gauge-based dataset in terms of rainfall analysis, and their performance within the SWAT model was assessed over calibration (2004-2013) and validation (2014-2015). Bias-corrected products demonstrated superior performance in rainfall analysis, with ADJ_TRMM outperforming other products. The SWAT model calibration results showed satisfactory performance across all stations, with a Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) ranging from [0.76-0.87]. Integrating bias-corrected SPPs into the SWAT model significantly increased the RR simulations in the MRB, indicated by higher NSE values [0.72-0.85] compared to uncorrected SPPs [-0.37 to 0.85] at the Kratie station. Besides, the inconsistent performance of bias-corrected products between rainfall analysis and RR modeling was observed, with ADJ_CDR outperforming ADJ_TRMM in the SWAT model. These results highlight the significance of using bias-corrected SPPs in hydrological modeling applications, especially in areas with limited ground-based precipitation data, and highlight the need for further research to refine bias correction methods and address the limitations of the SWAT model.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".