the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
A Differentiable Framework for Global Circulation Model Precipitation Bias Correction
Abstract. Systematic biases in General Circulation Model (GCM) outputs limit their direct applicability in regional planning, making bias correction a technically demanding but necessary step for both short-term and long-term impact assessment. Correcting precipitation is particularly challenging due to its non-Gaussian distribution, intermittent nature, and heavy-tailed extremes. However, traditional statistical bias-correction methods have limited ability to learn systematic patterns from large datasets or generalize to new locations. While machine learning (ML) provides greater flexibility, it can produce unpredictable and difficult-to-interpret results, limiting generalization across GCMs and locations. In this study, we propose a differentiable bias-adjustment framework called δCLIMBA, or dCLIMBA, that learns a spatiotemporally adaptive parametric bias-adjustment procedure, rather than corrected precipitation directly, between historical CMIP6 model outputs and a gridded observation-based dataset, Livneh. Results demonstrate that the proposed method corrects the magnitude and distribution of extreme precipitation with particularly strong performance in the upper tail. The quantile distribution of precipitation was well reproduced across diverse U.S. cities, and spatial patterns were comparable to those from the widely used LOCA2 statistical downscaling product. In addition, the framework showed partial future trend preservation and promising attenuation of marginal biases in unseen regions. This work presents a modular and efficient bias-correction approach. The differentiable approach provides an easy-to-use option for connecting atmospheric-model outputs to on-the-ground impacts.
Status: open (until 02 Aug 2026)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2546 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 21 Jun 2026
reply
-
CC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Kamlesh Sawadekar, 27 Jun 2026
reply
Hello Dr. Añel,
I am posting here the doi of the zenodo deposit containing the code and processed data required to reproduce the results in the paper.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20839571
We appreciate your patience on this matter. Let us know if you need anything else.
Thank you,
Kamlesh Sawadekar
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2546-CC1
-
CC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Kamlesh Sawadekar, 27 Jun 2026
reply
Viewed
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 121 | 0 | 0 | 121 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 121
- PDF: 0
- XML: 0
- Total: 121
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived your code on GitHub. However, GitHub is not a suitable repository for scientific publication. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other long-term archival and publishing alternatives, such as Zenodo. In addition, you have archived the data used and produced in your work, or cite to access them, several sites and none of them fulfil GMD’s requirements for a persistent data archive because:
- They do not appear to have a published policy for data preservation over many years or decades (some flexibility exists over the precise length of preservation, but the policy must exist).
- They do not appear to have a published mechanism for preventing authors from unilaterally removing material. Archives must have a policy which makes removal of materials only possible in exceptional circumstances and subject to an independent curatorial decision,
- They do not appear to issue a persistent identifier such as a DOI or Handle for each precise dataset.
If we have missed a published policy which does in fact address this matter satisfactorily, please post a response linking to it. If you have any questions about this issue, please post them in a reply.
The GMD review and publication process depends on reviewers and community commentators being able to access, during the discussion phase, the code and data on which a manuscript depends, and on ensuring the provenance of replicability of the published papers for years after their publication. Due to the lack of compliance of your manuscript, it should have never been accepted for Discussions in the journal in its current form. Please, therefore, publish your code and data in one of the appropriate repositories and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and a permanent identifier for it (e.g. DOI)) as soon as possible. We cannot have manuscripts under discussion that do not comply with our policy.
Later, if the Topical Editor decides to continue with the review or publication process of your manuscript and you are requested to upload a new version of it, then The 'Code and Data Availability’ section of your manuscript must also be modified to cite the new repository locations, and corresponding references added to the bibliography.
I must note that if you do not fix this problem, we cannot continue with the peer-review process or accept your manuscript for publication in GMD.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor