Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

AIFL: A Global Daily Streamflow Forecasting Model Using a Deterministic LSTM Pre-trained on ERA5-Land and Fine-tuned on IFS

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Global daily streamflow forecasting with a deterministic LSTM reaches a median KGE' of 0.66 when the model is pre-trained on reanalysis and fine-tuned on operational forecast forcings.

desk verdict AIFL is a solid global streamflow baseline with a real two-stage transfer idea, but the abstract advertises ablation results that simply are not in the manuscript. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.16579 v2 pith:QS7ZXTNU submitted 2026-02-18 cs.LG cs.AIphysics.app-ph

Maria Luisa Taccari , Kenza Tazi , Oisín M. Morrison , Andreas Grafberger , Juan Colonese , Corentin Carton de Wiart , Christel Prudhomme , Cinzia Mazzetti
show 2 more authors
Matthew Chantry Florian Pappenberger
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIphysics.app-ph
keywords globalstreamflowforecastingLSTMtransferlearningreanalysis-to-forecastdomainshiftERA5-LandIFSforecastsCaravandatasetflooddetection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to show that a deliberately simple, deterministic LSTM can be made operationally competitive for global daily streamflow forecasting despite the mismatch between the reanalysis data hydrologists train on and the numerical weather forecasts available in real time. The proposed fix is a two-stage training strategy: first learn general rainfall–runoff behavior from four decades of reanalysis across 18,588 basins, then fine-tune all weights on operational control forecasts to absorb forecast-specific biases. On an independent 2021–2024 test at 2,003 gauged basins driven by 1-day lead-time operational forcing, the model reports median KGE' 0.66, median NSE 0.53, and a median bias ratio of 1.00. The paper further claims that fine-tuning improves the worst-performing basins enough to lift mean global skill, and that the resulting model matches or exceeds a leading existing global flood model on a large subset of shared stations while producing zero false alarms in flood-event detection.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the two-stage transfer-learning schedule. A single-layer LSTM (1024 hidden units) reads 180-day sequences of five meteorological variables through a dynamic embedding MLP and 203 static basin attributes through a static embedding MLP, and outputs 10-day streamflow sequences. Pre-training on reanalysis learns generic rainfall–runoff response; fine-tuning on operational control forecasts adapts the same weights to the systematic wet bias and other error structures of the numerical weather prediction stream. The model is deliberately simple, with no routing graph, no probabilistic loss, and a single deterministic forecast.

What would settle it

Run the fine-tuned model on operational forecasts at lead times 2 through 9 over the same 2021–2024 test basins and compare skill to the 1-day-lead numbers; if KGE' or NSE decays substantially with lead time, the operational ten-day claim collapses. Also obtain the pre-trained-only model and the single-stage/mixed baselines and reproduce the ablation; if the two-stage gain disappears, the central methodological claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

AIFL is a global deterministic LSTM for daily streamflow forecasting that solves the reanalysis-to-forecast shift by explicit two-stage transfer learning: pre-training on 40 years of ERA5-Land reanalysis across 18,588 curated basins, then fine-tuning all weights on IFS control forecasts from 2016–2019. On a 2021–2024 temporal test with IFS 1-day lead-time forcing, the model achieves median KGE' 0.66, median NSE 0.53, median correlation 0.81, and median bias ratio 1.00. The paper argues that fine-tuning acts as an operational stabilizer, correcting severe forecast-induced errors in previously low-performing basins at only modest cost to well-calibrated ones, and that the model's flood-event d

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that correcting forecast bias at a one-day horizon is enough to correct the full ten-day forecast horizon, because the fine-tuning and all headline results use only one-day lead-time forcing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Global operational streamflow forecasting can be done with a plain deterministic LSTM rather than a physically routed or probabilistic system, provided the reanalysis-to-forecast shift is explicitly bridged.
  • Fine-tuning on operational forecasts acts as an operational stabilizer: it corrects severe forecast-induced errors in low-performing basins while only modestly degrading well-calibrated ones.
  • With a median bias ratio of 1.00, the model conserves volume across the global test network, a prerequisite for trustworthy water-resource accounting.
  • The zero-false-alarm flood detection profile, with recall between 0.32 and 0.54, implies the model can be used in early-warning settings where user trust depends on eliminating spurious alerts.
  • Because the model matches a larger, more complex global flood model at roughly 43% of shared stations and performs more consistently across basin sizes, it offers a transparent baseline for community experimentation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves the multi-lead-time case largely untested: fine-tuning used only 1-day lead-time control forecasts while operational inference extends to day 10. If forecast error structure changes with lead time, 1-day-derived skill may not transfer; a systematic lead-time evaluation is the natural next experiment.
  • The claimed advantage of the two-stage strategy over single-stage or forecast-only training is stated but not documented in the displayed results. Until the ablation is published, the causal claim that reanalysis pretraining is what drives the gain should be treated as provisional.
  • Because the test basins are skewed toward larger catchments (due to station record availability after 2015), the headline median skill may overstate performance for small headwater basins, where the paper itself reports mixed results relative to the benchmark.
  • The zero-false-alarm result follows from a strict same-day matching rule; relaxing the timing tolerance would likely reveal a trade-off between missed events and false alarms and is a cheap way to stress-test the claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces AIFL, a single-layer deterministic LSTM for global daily streamflow forecasting, pre-trained on 40 years of ERA5-Land reanalysis over 18,588 Caravan basins and then fine-tuned on IFS control forecasts at LT1 (2016–2019). The model is evaluated on a temporally independent test period (2021–2024) at 2,003 gauged basins, reporting median KGE' 0.66 and NSE 0.53, and is benchmarked against the Google global flood model on 1,218 shared stations. The central methodological claim is that this two-stage reanalysis-to-forecast transfer strategy outperforms a naive IFS-only baseline and a mixed-forcing single-stage alternative, and that the resulting model is a competitive, operationally robust baseline. Flood-event verification and a case study are also presented.

Significance. If the central claims hold, AIFL would be a useful transparent baseline for global operational streamflow forecasting, with a simple LSTM architecture, a clear temporal split, and an open data pipeline (Caravan/MultiMet). The independent temporal test design is a genuine strength: fine-tuning on 2016–2019 and test on 2021–2024 avoids trivial circularity. The comparison with the Google model over shared stations is informative, and the Hokitika/Storm Henk examples illustrate the intended behavior. However, the paper's stated primary contribution—the superiority of the two-stage training strategy over IFS-only and mixed single-stage alternatives—is asserted in the abstract but never demonstrated in Sections 3 or 4. The only reported comparison is pre-trained versus fine-tuned, which does not establish the claimed ablation. Until that evidence is supplied, the methodological novelty of AIFL is unverified, and the operational claims are also limited by the lack of systematic lead-time evaluation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §3.2] The abstract states: 'Ablation experiments confirm that this two-stage approach outperforms both a naive IFS-only baseline and a mixed-forcing single-stage alternative.' I could not find these ablation experiments anywhere in the manuscript. §3.2 reports only the pre-trained versus fine-tuned comparison on the 2,003 test basins (median ΔKGE' = −0.013; mean KGE' 0.21→0.44; mean NSE −11.40→−3.26). That comparison is not an IFS-only baseline and is not a mixed-forcing single-stage alternative. Because the two-stage strategy is the paper's stated primary contribution, this omission is load-bearing: the reported test skill could in principle be achieved by pre-training alone, by direct IFS training, or by a single-stage mixed-forcing model. Please add the missing ablation results with a full description of the training setups and a metric table, or remove the claim.
  2. [§3.2, §4.1] The operational system is claimed to provide global daily streamflow forecasts over a 10-day horizon, but all systematic results are for LT1 forcings. §3.2 states that lead-time-specific drift is 'reserved for future analyses,' and §4.1 reports skill only for IFS LT1. The only multi-lead evidence is the single Storm Henk case study (Fig. 8). The title and conclusion promise a 10-day forecasting model; without a lead-time-resolved evaluation (e.g., median KGE'/NSE by LT1–LT9), or an explicit statement that skill claims apply only to LT1, the operational claim is unsupported. Please add a systematic multi-lead evaluation or substantially qualify the claims.
  3. [§4.2, Table 4] The reported global precision of 1.0 and zero false alarms for all return periods under exact day matching are extraordinary and require more careful definition. Hits/misses/false alarms depend on the threshold construction, which is asymmetric: forecast event thresholds are derived from a 45-year ERA5-Land simulation, while observed event thresholds come from the historical observational record. The text does not define the counting unit (station-days, event episodes, or individual exceedance days) or how sustained exceedances are handled. As written, the zero-false-alarm result may be an artifact of the threshold/event definition rather than a meaningful property of the model. Please report precision and recall with a time tolerance, explicit event definitions, and base rates, or restrict the claims accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.4, Fig. 3] Figure 3 legend labels the test period as '2021–2023' while the text and table use '2021–2024'. Please correct the inconsistency.
  2. [Code and Data Availability] The text says code and weights are 'intended to be hosted' and that 'the repository is still under preparation and not yet publicly accessible.' This is inconsistent with the paper's repeated emphasis on transparency and reproducibility. Please provide a URL or DOI, or state clearly that the artifacts are not yet available.
  3. [§4.3] The Google model comparison is based on publicly released outputs, but the manuscript does not state whether the Google model's training period overlaps the 2021–2024 test period. A sentence clarifying the benchmark setup and any potential temporal overlap would strengthen the comparison.
  4. [§3.2] The notation for the variability ratio in Figure 6 uses α, while the text in §4.3 refers to γ. Please standardize the notation for the KGE' decomposition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: AIFL's headline skill is an external temporal holdout evaluation and is not reduced from its training inputs; the only flagged issue is an unsupported (but not circular) ablation claim.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities—median KGE' 0.66 and NSE 0.53—are computed on IFS LT1 forcings over 2021–2024, which are temporally disjoint from both the ERA5-Land pretraining (1980–2019) and the IFS fine-tuning (2016–2019). No equation in Section 3.2 defines the test metric in terms of the fitted parameters; the loss in Eq. (1) is a standard normalized MSE and does not encode KGE' or NSE. The pretrained-versus-fine-tuned comparison (median ΔKGE' = −0.013; mean KGE' 0.21→0.44) is a model comparison on the same holdout, not a construction. The abstract's claim that 'ablation experiments confirm' superiority over an IFS-only baseline and a mixed-forcing single-stage alternative is not documented in Sections 3–4; that is a missing-evidence and verifiability gap, not circularity, because those baselines are not shown to be equivalent to AIFL by construction. Flood-event thresholds are partly derived from the model's own ERA5-Land simulation, but the dual-threshold framework uses separate observational thresholds for observed events, so precision/recall are not forced to 1.0 by definition. There is one minor self-citation ([3] Prudhomme et al.) used only to motivate calibration practice in process-based models; it is not load-bearing. External benchmarking against Google model outputs and reported GloFAS skill provide independent reference points. Therefore, no circular step is identified; the paper is an empirical ML study rather than a derivation from its own assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central contribution is empirical and rests on many hand-set modelling and curation choices; no formal derivation is involved. The most load-bearing unstated premise is that LT1 fine-tuning transfers to longer lead times; the dedup thresholds and test-set selection also shape the reported global skill.

free parameters (5)
  • LSTM hidden state size = 1024
    Chosen over 256 because of higher spatial-generalisation NSE (0.63 vs 0.48); no systematic hyperparameter search (§3.1).
  • Input sequence length = 180 days
    Selected by sensitivity analysis; 365 days gave negligible gains (§3.1).
  • Basin deduplication / QC thresholds = overlap≥0.7; duplicate KGE≥0.95; discard KGE<0.6; flatline filter
    Hand-set curation rules determine which 18,588 basins enter training and hence the skill estimates; no sensitivity analysis is shown (§2.2).
  • Loss normalisation epsilon = 0.1
    Added to the denominator of the normalised MSE loss to avoid division by small variances (Eq. 1).
  • Training hyperparameters = LR 4e-4/1e-4, batch 512, 100/30 epochs, dropout 0.4, gradient clipping 1.0
    Hand-specified based on NeuralHydrology defaults and early development; no systematic search (§3.2, Table 2).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Annual maximum streamflow follows a Gumbel distribution fitted by L-moments to define return-period thresholds
    Used in §4.2 to label flood events; if the extreme-value model is misspecified, the reported precision/recall values are distorted.
  • domain assumption IFS LT1 control forecasts have error characteristics representative of all operational lead times (LT1–LT9)
    Fine-tuning is done only on LT1; operational inference uses longer leads, and lead-time-specific drift is explicitly deferred (§3.2).
  • domain assumption The five CARAVAN MultiMet variables (SSR, STR, SP, T2M, TP) shared between ERA5-Land and IFS are sufficient meteorological drivers for daily streamflow
    Input space is restricted to these variables for seamless transfer (§2.3, Table 1); additional predictors are acknowledged as likely useful.
  • domain assumption Caravan streamflow observations are reliable ground truth after the dedup/QC rules
    All skill metrics compare against these gauges; thresholds are hand-set and not independently audited (§2.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AIFL: A Global Daily Streamflow Forecasting Model Using a Deterministic LSTM Pre-trained on ERA5-Land and Fine-tuned on IFS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QS7ZXTNU

@misc{pith2026260216579,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AIFL: A Global Daily Streamflow Forecasting Model Using a Deterministic LSTM Pre-trained on ERA5-Land and Fine-tuned on IFS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QS7ZXTNU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.16579}
}
read the original abstract

Reliable global streamflow forecasting is essential for flood preparedness and water resource management, yet data-driven models often suffer from a performance gap when transitioning from historical reanalysis to operational forecast products. This paper introduces AIFL (Artificial Intelligence for Floods), a deterministic LSTM-based model designed for global daily streamflow forecasting. Trained on 18,588 basins curated from the Caravan dataset, AIFL utilises a two-stage transfer-learning strategy to bridge the reanalysis-to-forecast domain shift. The model is first pre-trained on 40 years of ERA5-Land reanalysis (1980-2019) to capture robust hydrological processes, then fine-tuned on operational Integrated Forecasting System (IFS) forecasts (2016-2019) to adapt to the specific error structures and biases of operational numerical weather prediction. Ablation experiments confirm that this two-stage approach outperforms both a naive IFS-only baseline and a mixed-forcing single-stage alternative. To our knowledge, this is the first global model trained end-to-end within the Caravan ecosystem. On an independent temporal test set (2021-2024), AIFL achieves high predictive skill with a median modified Kling-Gupta Efficiency (KGE') of 0.66 and a median Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) of 0.53. Benchmarking results show that AIFL achieves comparable accuracy to current state-of-the-art global systems. The model provides a streamlined and operationally robust baseline for the global hydrological community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.16579 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the AIFL framework. The model architecture uses separate Multi-Layer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Global spatial distribution of the 18,588 quality-controlled streamflow stations across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Global station availability over time (1950–2023). Shaded regions indicate the splits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Global spatial distribution of the normalised Wasserstein distance ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hydro-meteorological time series for the Hokitika River, Gorge (New Zealand; 363 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Global performance metrics for the AIFL model across the 2,003 test basins (Sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Global map of temporal generalisation performance (KGE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Flood event case study for Storm Henk (January 2024) at the Straimont station in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Diagnostic benchmarking of AIFL against the Google global model. (A) Distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparative performance metrics between AIFL (navy) and the Google global model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alfieri et al

    L. Alfieri et al. GloFAS—global ensemble streamflow forecasting and flood early warning. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17(3):1161–1175, 2013

    2013

  2. [2]

    V. P. Singh.Hydrologic Modeling: Progress and Future Directions. MDPI, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Prudhomme et al

    C. Prudhomme et al. Global hydrological reanalyses: The value of river discharge informa- tion for world-wide downstream applications – the example of the global flood awareness system GloFAS.Meteorological Applications, 31(2):e2192, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Grimaldi et al

    S. Grimaldi et al. GloFAS v4.0: Towards hyper-resolution hydrological modelling at the global scale.Copernicus Meetings, EGU23-15711, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Lang et al

    S. Lang et al. Aifs: Ecmwf’s data-driven forecasting system, 2024. arXiv preprint

    2024

  6. [6]

    Moldovan et al

    G. Moldovan et al. An update to ecmwf’s machine-learned weather forecast model aifs,

  7. [7]

    Louise Slater, Georgios Blougouras, Liangkun Deng, Qimin Deng, Emma Ford, Anne Hoek van Dijke, Feini Huang, Shijie Jiang, Yinxue Liu, Simon Moulds, Andrew Schepen, Jiabo Yin, and Boen Zhang. Challenges and opportunities of ml and explainable ai in large-sample hydrology.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer...

    2025

  8. [8]

    Kratzert, M

    F. Kratzert, M. Gauch, D. Klotz, and G. Nearing. Hess opinions: Never train a long short- term memory (lstm) network on a single basin.Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 28(17):4187–4201, 2024. 18

    2024

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Kratzert, D

    F. Kratzert, D. Klotz, C. Brenner, G. Klambauer, and S. Hochreiter. Toward learning universal, regional, and local hydrological behaviors via machine learning applied to large- sample datasets.Water Resources Research, 55(2):1392–1411, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Ruparell et al

    K. Ruparell et al. Hydra-lstm: A semi-shared machine learning architecture for prediction across watersheds.Artificial Intelligence for the Earth Systems, 4(3):240103, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Y. Wang, L. Zhang, N. B. Erichson, and T. Yang. Investigating the streamflow simulation capability of a new mass-conserving long short-term memory (mc-lstm) model across the contiguous united states.Journal of Hydrology, 658:133161, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Nearing et al

    G. Nearing et al. What role does hydrological science play in the age of machine learning? Water Resources Research, 57(3):e2020WR028091, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Scholz, M

    F. Scholz, M. Traub, C. Zarfl, T. Scholten, and M. V. Butz. Fully differentiable, fully distributed rainfall-runoff modeling.EGUsphere, pages 1–37, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Moshe et al

    Z. Moshe et al. Hydronets: Leveraging river structure for hydrologic modeling, 2020. arXiv preprint

    2020

  7. [15]

    M. H. Shams Eddin, Y. Zhang, S. Kollet, and J. Gall. Rivermamba: A state space model for global river discharge and flood forecasting, 2025. arXiv preprint

    2025

  8. [16]

    Yang et al

    Y. Yang et al. Combining grid-level lstm runoff with the rapid routing engine, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Bindas et al

    T. Bindas et al. Improving river routing using a differentiable muskingum–cunge model and physics-informed machine learning.Water Resources Research, 60(1):e2023WR035337, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Kraft et al

    B. Kraft et al. Ch-run: A deep-learning-based spatially contiguous runoff reconstruction for switzerland.Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 29(4):1061–1082, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Kraft, M

    B. Kraft, M. Kauzlaric, W. H. Aeberhard, M. Zappa, and L. Gudmundsson. Drop: A scalable deep learning approach for runoff simulation and river routing.Authorea Preprints, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Nearing et al

    G. Nearing et al. Global prediction of extreme floods in ungauged watersheds.Nature, 627:559–563, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    A. J. Newman et al. Development of a large-sample watershed-scale hydrometeorological data set for the contiguous usa.Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 19(1):209–231, 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    Kratzert et al

    F. Kratzert et al. Caravan – a global community dataset for large-sample hydrology.Sci- entific Data, 10(13), 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Hydrodiffusion: Diffusion-based probabilistic streamflow forecasting with a state space backbone.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.12183, 2025

    Yihan Wang, Annan Yu, Lujun Zhang, Charuleka Varadharajan, and N Benjamin Erich- son. Hydrodiffusion: Diffusion-based probabilistic streamflow forecasting with a state space backbone.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.12183, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Bi- ascast: Learning and adjusting real time biases from meteorological forecasts to enhance runoff predictions.EGUsphere, pages 1–25, 2025

    Oliver Konold, Moritz Feigl, Patrick Podest, Christoph Klingler, and Karsten Schulz. Bi- ascast: Learning and adjusting real time biases from meteorological forecasts to enhance runoff predictions.EGUsphere, pages 1–25, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Shalev and F

    G. Shalev and F. Kratzert. Caravan multimet: Extending caravan with multiple weather nowcasts and forecasts, 2025. arXiv preprint. 19

    2025

  18. [26]

    Ryd and G

    A. Ryd and G. S. Nearing. Fine flood forecasts: Incorporating local data into global models through fine-tuning. InICLR 2025 Workshop on Tackling Climate Change with Machine Learning, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    A compre- hensive, multisource database for hydrometeorological modeling of 14,425 north american watersheds.Scientific Data, 7(1):243, 2020

    Richard Arsenault, François Brissette, Jean-Luc Martel, Magali Troin, Guillaume Lévesque, Jonathan Davidson-Chaput, Musandji Fuamba, David Huard, and Annie Poulin. A compre- hensive, multisource database for hydrometeorological modeling of 14,425 north american watersheds.Scie...

    2020

  20. [28]

    Newman, Naoki Mizukami, and Martyn P

    Nereus Addor, Andrew J. Newman, Naoki Mizukami, and Martyn P. Clark. The CAMELS data set: catchment attributes and meteorology for large-sample studies.Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21(10):5293–5313, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Färber, H

    C. Färber, H. Plessow, S. A. Mischel, F. Kratzert, N. Addor, G. Shalev, and U. Looser. GRDC-Caravan: extending Caravan with data from the Global Runoff Data Centre.Earth System Science Data, 17:4613–4625, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    Gupta, Harald Kling, Koray K

    Hoshin V. Gupta, Harald Kling, Koray K. Yilmaz, and Guillermo F. Martinez. Decompo- sition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling.Journal of Hydrology, 377(1–2):80–91, 2009

    2009

  23. [31]

    Prates, Fréderic Vitart, Peter Bauer, and David Richardson

    Thomas Haiden, Martin Janousek, Jean Bidlot, Laura Ferranti, F. Prates, Fréderic Vitart, Peter Bauer, and David Richardson. Evaluation of ECMWF forecasts, including the 2016 resolution upgrade. Technical Memorandum 792, ECMWF, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Global hydro-environmental sub-basin and river reach characteristics at high spatial resolution.Scientific Data, 6(1):283, 2019

    Simon Linke, Bernhard Lehner, Catherine Ouellet Dallaire, Joseph Ariwi, Günther Grill, Mira Anand, Peter Beames, Vicente Burchard-Levine, Shawna Maxwell, Heloisa Moidu, et al. Global hydro-environmental sub-basin and river reach characteristics at high spatial resolution.Scien...

    2019

  25. [33]

    Neuralhydrology — a python library for deep learning research in hydrology.Journal of Open Source Software, 7(71):4050, 2022

    Frederik Kratzert, Martin Gauch, Grey Nearing, and Daniel Klotz. Neuralhydrology — a python library for deep learning research in hydrology.Journal of Open Source Software, 7(71):4050, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Kratzert et al

    F. Kratzert et al. Towards learning universal, regional, and local hydrological behaviors via machine learning applied to large-sample datasets.Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 23(12):5089–5110, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Miralles, María Piles, Nemesio J

    Joaquín Muñoz-Sabater, Emanuel Dutra, Anna Agustí-Panareda, Clément Albergel, Gabriele Arduini, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Souhail Boussetta, Margarita Choulga, Shaun Harri- gan, Hans Hersbach, Brecht Martens, Diego G. Miralles, María Piles, Nemesio J. Rodríguez- Fernández, Ervin Zsot...

    2021

  28. [36]

    Runoff conditions in the upper Danube basin under an ensemble of climate change scenarios.Journal of Hydrology, 424–425:264– 277, 2012

    Harald Kling, Martin Fuchs, and Maria Paulin. Runoff conditions in the upper Danube basin under an ensemble of climate change scenarios.Journal of Hydrology, 424–425:264– 277, 2012

    2012

  29. [37]

    Inherent benchmark or not? Comparing Nash–Sutcliffe and Kling–Gupta efficiency scores.Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 23(10):4323–4331, 2019

    Wouter J M Knoben, Jim E Freer, and Ross A Woods. Inherent benchmark or not? Comparing Nash–Sutcliffe and Kling–Gupta efficiency scores.Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 23(10):4323–4331, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    GloFAS v4 calibration hydrological model per- formance

    Stefania Grimaldi and Karen O’Regan. GloFAS v4 calibration hydrological model per- formance. Copernicus Emergency Management Service (CEMS) Wiki, 2023. Accessed: 2025-01-25. 20

    2023

  31. [39]

    Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations.Transactions of the ASABE, 50(3):885–900, 2007

    Daniel N Moriasi, Jeffrey G Arnold, Michael W Van Liew, Ronald L Bingner, R Daren Harmel, and Tamie L Veith. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations.Transactions of the ASABE, 50(3):885–900, 2007

    2007

  32. [40]

    Barnes, Eve C

    Lindsey R. Barnes, Eve C. Gruntfest, Mary H. Hayden, David M. Rogers, and Kevin W. Schulz. False alarms and close calls: A conceptual model of warning trust.Weather and Forecasting, 22(5):1140–1147, 2007

    2007

  33. [41]

    Effectiveness and efficiency of public flood preparedness and emergency response.Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21(4):2001–2017, 2017

    Kai Schröter, Tobias Sieg, Kristin Vogel, Jacek Vogel, Maite Iturriza, Alberto Arzelus, Jon Urrutia, Joseba Zubieta, Maider Garmendia, Matthias Kemter, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of public flood preparedness and emergency response.Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, ...

    2001

  34. [42]

    Global prediction of extreme floods in ungauged watersheds, 2023

    Grey Nearing. Global prediction of extreme floods in ungauged watersheds, 2023. Zenodo, Version 3. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10397664. 21

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.