Deep learning models, particularly Long Short-Term Memory networks, are increasingly used for operational streamflow forecasting, with ensemble spread providing a signal of predictive uncertainty. As climate change increases the frequency of hydroclimatic extremes, these models will increasingly operate under flow conditions that are rare in their historical records. We therefore evaluate whether ensemble spread remains informative under increasing flows, examining both its magnitude relative to error and its ability to rank errors. Prediction error is approximately 2× the corrected spread at ordinary flows and up to 4× at the highest flows, with the discrepancy increasing with flow (log-log slope 1.30, 95% CI: [1.20,1.41]). Under-dispersion is strongest in observed extreme flows beyond the training record, reaching an 18× discrepancy. This is pervasive and not explainable by conditional mean bias. Area Under the Sparsification Error, a standard distribution-free metric of uncertainty ranking, describing how well a model knows when it is uncertain, indicates near-oracle ranking for ensemble spread (0.071), yet ordering by predicted discharge alone nearly matches it. Informative uncertainty ranking can coexist with severe under-dispersion. In deployment, error ranking cannot be verified, yet the spread is available, and it is relied on as the uncertainty signal under increasingly extreme conditions, while systematically understating risk, most severely for the extreme events that matter most.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: UDF by decile of the conditioning variable. (a) Deciles of observed discharge ( y ). (b) Deciles of the ensemble mean discharge ( μ^ ), with the fitted log-log scaling relationship and 95% confidence interval. Error bars denote 95% bootstrap intervals clustered by catchment.
Figure 2: (a) Sparsification curves under ensemble spread and μ^ for the full test set and top observed-flow decile, compared with oracle and random ordering. (b) AUSE versus UDF across catchments.
> p90
> p95
> p99
> p99.5
> p99.9
> max
UDF
5.65
6.79
10.40
11.99
14.41
17.93
observed / expected
1.15
1.26
1.51
1.64
2.30
N/A
catchment-days ( n )
100,974
55,212
13,295
7,185
2,023
603
Table 1: UDF against each catchment’s fixed 1980–2005 training flow distribution.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Handling
Variable name
Units
Dynamic input
Maximum temperature
∘ C day -1
Dynamic input
Minimum temperature
∘ C day -1
Dynamic input
Total precipitation
mm day -1
Static input
Catchment area
km 2
Static input
Mean elevation
m above sea level
Static input
Elevation range
m
Appendix
Table 2: LSTM data used
Subset
Forcing data
Streamflow data
Number of observations
Training
1979/01/01–2005/12/30
1980/01/01–2005/12/31
2,278,178
Validation
2005/01/01–2012/12/30
2006/01/01–2012/12/31
607,967
Testing
2012/01/01–2022/12/30
2013/01/01–2022/12/31
877,729
Appendix
Table 3: Partitions of forcing and streamflow datasets. The forcing data subsets begin exactly one year prior to the streamflow subsets to provide the 365-day meteorological context window required for the first target prediction.
conditioned on y
conditioned on μ^
decile
n
UDF
mean r
n
UDF
mean r
0–10
82,317
2.00
−0.096
87,680
2.10
−0.010
10–20
88,420
1.97
−0.086
87,735
2.85
−0.018
20–30
90,156
2.16
−0.101
87,750
2.53
−0.023
30–40
96,425
2.16
−0.117
87,735
2.65
−0.028
40–50
84,593
2.23
−0.160
87,727
3.26
−0.031
Appendix
Table 4: The Conditional Bias, UDF, and mean residual r=y−μ^ behind Figure 1 , reported by decile of each conditioning variable. Deciles are within-catchment flow percentiles; ties in observed discharge leave the y -conditioned deciles slightly uneven. The null for the UDF is exactly 1 under μ^ -conditioning; the null for the mean residual is 0 . Top-decile catchment-clustered bootstrap 95% intervals ( B=1000 ): 5.76 [ 4.48 , 6.90 ] conditioned on y , 4.27 [ 3.50 , 4.99 ] conditioned on μ^ . Bold outlines the out of sample test.
all test
top flow decile
fraction removed
spread
flow
oracle
random
spread
flow
oracle
random
0.0
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.1
0.294
0.351
0.139
1.000
0.610
0.670
0.208
1.002
0.2
0.183
0.217
0.080
1.003
0.465
0.575
0.144
0.997
0.3
0.129
0.157
0.052
1.002
0.389
0.483
0.107
0.998
0.4
0.097
0.117
0.036
0.999
0.302
0.422
0.081
0.997
Appendix
Table 5: Sparsification curves behind Figure 2 a, on the plotted grid of 91 points, with removal in 1% steps to 90% removed, sampled here every tenth point. Each curve is normalized by its set’s full-sample RMSE, so every ordering starts at 1.000 and AUSE is unaffected by the normalization. Spread orders catchment-days by reported ensemble variance, flow by the ensemble mean prediction μ^ alone, oracle by realized squared error, and random by a seeded permutation averaged over ten draws, flat to within 0.016 . The flow column is the comparator for the ordering claim; it carries no uncertainty information, only predicted magnitude, and is computable at deployment. These are integrated over a 91 -point grid, not over the ten rows shown.
UDF
AUSE decile
n
AUSE range
median
min
max
0–10
27
[0.024,0.071]
3.45
1.68
10.40
10–20
27
[0.072,0.092]
3.14
1.17
5.94
20–30
27
[0.093,0.105]
2.44
1.38
5.25
30–40
27
[0.106,0.122]
2.16
1.39
4.68
40–50
26
[0.123,0.136]
2.44
1.03
10.78
Appendix
Table 6: The 269 catchments of Figure 2 b, binned into deciles of per-catchment AUSE. Per-catchment rows are omitted for space, so the panel’s claim is given in its smallest form: sorting catchments by how well their spread ranks error does not sort them by how well it is scaled. UDF is computed within each catchment; Spearman ρ=−0.23 ( p=0.00014 ). Every catchment (n=269) exceeds the null of 1 , minimum 1.03 .
Uncertainty quantification of hydrological predictions is necessary to inform operational decisions. Recent generative machine-learning methods have advanced probabilistic streamflow prediction, but have remained confined to lumped models that predict a basin outlet directly. At the same time, deterministic LSTM runoff models are increasingly applied at grid or catchment scale and routed through river networks to produce spatially continuous, physically consistent discharge fields. This technical note argues that moving probabilistic prediction from lumped to distributed models introduces a specific new requirement: the joint distribution of upstream runoff generation must be sampled jointly. In lumped inference, the model predicts the outlet distribution directly and can modulate spread from basin attributes. In distributed inference, downstream discharge is obtained by routing many upstream runoff predictions, so independent local sampling averages uncertainty away. Using Japan as a case study, we train two probabilistic basin-scale runoff LSTMs and route their runoff through a Hayami routing scheme. Randomly matching upstream ensemble members produces severely under-dispersed downstream ensembles, whereas a simple quantile matching strategy restores much of the spread of the direct basin-scale reference. The shift from lumped to distributed probabilistic hydrology therefore requires explicit attention to the spatial joint structure of runoff uncertainty.
University of Reading, Department of Meteorology, Reading, UK · European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), Reading, UK · RIKEN Center for Computational Sciences, Kobe, Japan +3
Accurate forecasting of river discharge and floods is very challenging. River dynamics are affected by storage, meteorological forcing, and flow propagation at different spatial and temporal scales. Forecasting thus requires a framework that considers the upstream-to-downstream flow through river networks across grid cells and catchments. This modeling is known in hydrology as distributed modeling and routing. Existing deep learning approaches either ignore this topology, operate on lumped catchments, or route predicted physical quantities through a separate graph or physical routing model. We instead introduce feature-space routing: a topology-aware state-space operator embedded directly in the forecasting dynamics. At every forecast step, the operator gathers latent states from upstream grid cells and causally updates the downstream state according to the known river network. This preserves the physical connectivity of the river system while allowing the propagated state itself to be learned end-to-end and allows the model to predict river discharge considering both local dynamics and neighboring upstream contributions. To address uncertainty and provide probabilistic forecasts, we minimize the fair continuous ranked probability score (fCRPS) as a training objective. Our experiments on the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS) and observational data for river discharge forecasting demonstrate that encoding the physical structure of river networks explicitly in the feature space substantially improves the forecasting skill, particularly in an ungauged setting. Our approach achieves state-of-the-art results on both reanalysis and observational data and is able to forecast maps of river discharge at 1 arcminute and 6-hourly resolution up to 10 days lead time.
Mohamad Hakam Shams Eddin, Maria Luisa Taccari, Yikui Zhang +3
Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Germany · European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), United Kingdom · Institute of Bio- and Geosciences Agrosphere (IBG-3), Research Centre Jülich, Germany +2
Reliable wildfire spread prediction is vital for risk-aware emergency planning, yet most deep learning models lack principled uncertainty quantification (UQ). Further, for boundary-sensitive cases like wildfire spread, evaluating models with global metrics alone is often insufficient. To shift the focus of UQ evaluation toward a more operationally relevant approach, the Fire-Centered Evaluation Region (FCER) framework is introduced as a spatially conditioned protocol to characterize UQ within critical fire zones. Using FCER, an Ensemble is compared against an distilled single-pass student model on the WildfireSpreadTS dataset. The student model demonstrates comparable calibration and complementary uncertainty ranking in boundary-relevant regimes. Code is available at https://github.com/jonasvilhofunk/WildfireUQ-FCER