Influence of Subseasonal-to-Annual Water Supply Forecasts on Many-Objective Water System Robustness under Long-Term Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sensitivity of forecast-informed reservoir operating policies to forecast attributes (lead-time and skill) in many-objective water systems has been well-established. However, the viability of forecast-informed operations as a climate change adaptation strategy remains underexplored, especially in many-objective systems with complex trade-offs across interests. Little is known about the relationships between forecast attribute and policy robustness under deep uncertainty in future conditions and the relationships between forecast-informed performance and future hydrologic state. This study explores the sensitivity of forecast-informed policy robustness to forecast lead-time and skill in the outflow management plan of the Lake Ontario basin. We create water supply forecasts at four different subseasonal-to-annual lead-times and two levels of skill and further employ a many-objective evolutionary algorithm to discover policies tailored for each forecast case, historical supply conditions, and six objectives. We also leverage a partnership with decision-makers to identify a subset of candidate policies, which are reevaluated under a large set of plausible hydrologic conditions that reflect stationary and nonstationary climates. Scenario discovery techniques are used to map attributes of future hydrology to forecast-informed policy performance. Results show policy robustness is directly related to forecast lead-time, where policies conditioned on 12-month forecasts were more robust under future hydrology. Policies tailored for noisier long-lead forecasts were more robust under a wide range of plausible futures compared with policies trained to perfect forecasts, which highlights the potential to overfit control policies to historical information, even for a forecast-informed policy with perfect foresight. The relationship between performance and the hydrologic regime is dependent on the complexity of the interactions between control decisions and objectives. A threshold of objective performance as a function of supply conditions can support adaptive management of the system. However, more complex interactions make it difficult to identify simple hydrologic indicators that can serve as triggers for dynamic management.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".