the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Exploring Hybrid Forecasting Frameworks for Subseasonal Low Flow Predictions in the European Alps
Abstract. Since the start of the 21st century, the European Alpine region has faced unprecedented low-flow conditions and drought events, severely impacting sectors dependent on reliable water availability, such as hydropower production, agriculture, and transportation. The growing frequency and severity of these low-flow conditions have led to a need for early warning systems. In this study, we present a novel machine learning (ML) aided hybrid forecasting framework designed to enhance sub-seasonal low-flow predictions in the European Alps. By harnessing the statistical power of ML and integrating diverse data sources, we trained 11 models using the Temporal Fusion Transformer (TFT) algorithm. These models incorporate features such as European Atlantic Weather Regimes (WR) for capturing large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns, in-situ streamflow observations for initial conditions, and process-based predictions from the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS). Our results show that the hybrid framework, even when using only WR data, outperforms climatology. The best results are achieved by combining observational data with process-based model data (raw EFAS output), underscoring the value of integrating diverse data sources. The models effectively capture initial condition persistence and correct biases in the raw EFAS output. Based on the Continuous Ranked Probability Skill Score (CRPSS), the best model effectively extends the skilful forecast horizon by 5 days on average across all stations during low flow periods. Furthermore, the interpretability of the TFT model provides valuable insights, identifying glacier coverage as a key catchment feature influencing model performance. Future research should further explore the connections between hydrological features and prediction skill, as well as the framework's applicability in ungauged areas and other regions.
- Preprint
(5462 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(34464 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3411', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Oct 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3411', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Dec 2025
This paper explores a hybrid forecasting framework to predict low flows in the European Alps at a sub-seasonal scale, testing combinations of different input variables and evaluating performance in both reanalysis and forecast modes. The study provides valuable insights into the implementation of hybrid forecasting systems, and the use of EFAS adds practical relevance for future operational applications. This is a promising work which I would recommend acceptance after revisions addressing the following aspects.
One point regards to the focus on low-flow prediction specifically. Given that the models appear to be trained across all seasons (as I understand), it would be helpful for the authors to explain why the evaluation is restricted to low-flow conditions only.
The methodology is generally well explained, some additional clarifications would be needed. In particular, the encoder-decoder architecture of the TFT model could be described more clearly. Are there new inputs introduced during the decoder phase, or does the decoder rely only on the internal representation generated by the encoder? Moreover, are the precipitation/temperature/weather regime for the 32-day forecast horizon used as inputs too, or the model use only information from the previous 64 days?
Line 102, the use of the 31-day moving window centered on each day is clear, but the 7-day smoothed data needs more clarification. How is the 7-day smoothing interact with the 31-day window?
Line 110, here all stations are assigned to one of the two categories (nival/pluvial). If I understand correctly, these categories are not used during model training but only for comparison, could the authors confirm this?
Line 123, could the authors confirm that the streamflow is used in unit of mm?
Line 137, Do the weather-regime come with ensemble members and a 6-hour lead time, as implied? How are these used as inputs to the TFT model, do you aggregate them and assign one weather regime per daily time step?
Line 169, the format of “” needs adjusted.
Line 250, could the authors explain the reason of splitting the dataset starting from different seasons?
Line 262, Including country as an input variable seems somewhat unconvincing. While it may provide coarse locational information, national borders are not hydrologically meaningful. Could the authors elaborate on why this variable was chosen and whether more physically relevant spatial descriptors (e.g. hydrological regions, climatic zones) were considered?
Line 286, This is an interesting point. There is debate in the community regarding the inclusion of day of the year as an input feature, some consider it a form of “cheating” because it implicitly encodes seasonal information so the model doesn’t need to learn this from the dataset, while others view it as a legitimate predictor. Given that this feature appears to have relatively high importance (Figure 9, higher than WR-LC) in the results, it would be valuable to hear the authors’ perspective on this.
Line 303, could the authors clarify how lead time is handled when transitioning from reanalysis to forecast data during the decoder phase?
Figure 5, the lines in this figure are kind of difficult to distinguish. Please consider improving color contrast or line styles.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3411-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,257 | 124 | 28 | 2,409 | 58 | 36 | 32 |
- HTML: 2,257
- PDF: 124
- XML: 28
- Total: 2,409
- Supplement: 58
- BibTeX: 36
- EndNote: 32
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Review of ” Exploring Hybrid Forecasting Frameworks for Subseasonal Low Flow Predictions in the European Alps” by Chang et al. The paper presents the use of a ML technique and hybrid form to improve sub-seasonal low-flow in the European alps. The results are somewhat underwhelming in the sense that the best effect of the hybrid technique requires EFAS model data, and the WR does not add information in these cases. Adding observations helped gain skill, but as the authors point out, the method then becomes a very sophisticated bias correction method. The question then arises whether similar results can be achieved by less comp[lex methods. The study shows a major improvements in uncalibrated catchments which is useful, but why are these points not calibrated in the first place? The study is still worthwhile publishing , but I do recommend a major revision.
Major comments
The choice of mean flow is a very weak benchmark as it is not considering even the seasonal patterns of the streamflow, therefore making it very easy to beat and not very useful as diagnostic measure of your model performance. I strongly recommend testing the method against a benchmark of using LISFLOOD modelled with observational data, selected randomly omitting the actual year (ESP) as in Arnal et al, 2028 and Wetterhall and Di Giuseppe 2018.
The selection of measures to measure skill is also not carefully considered. The authors want to provide an assessment of low flows, but have not chosen metrics that can reflect that, or modified the metrics to show thee skill, for example by using the log values instead of streamflow, or selecting a sub-set of the hydrograph to focus on the low-flows. I am therefore puzzled why the study in the title says it focuses on low-flow.
The language is in general very good, but the figures are generally very difficult to interpreted and need to be improved substantially. I also think that the authors sometimes show too much information rather than focussing on the important results.
Minor comments
References
Arnal, L., Cloke, H. L., Stephens, E., Wetterhall, F., Prudhomme, C., Neumann, J., Krzeminski, B., and Pappenberger, F.: Skilful seasonal forecasts of streamflow over Europe?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 2057–2072, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2057-2018, 2018.
Wetterhall, F. and Di Giuseppe, F.: The benefit of seamless forecasts for hydrological predictions over Europe, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 3409–3420, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-3409-2018, 2018.