RRR/RAPID input and output files corresponding to "Underlying Fundamentals of Kalman Filtering for River Network Modeling"

<strong>Corresponding peer-reviewed publication</strong> This dataset corresponds to all the RRR/RAPID input and output files that were used in the study reported in: Emery, C. M., C. H. David, K. M. Andreadis, M. J. Turmon, J. T. Reager, and J. M. Hobbs (2020), Underlying Fundamentals of Kalman Filtering for River Network Modeling, Journal of Hydrometeorology, 21, 453-474, DOI: 10.1175/JHM-D-19-0084.1. When making use of any of the files in this dataset, please cite both the aforementioned article and the dataset herein. <strong>Known bugs and limitations in this dataset or the associated manuscript.</strong> In the final version of the published manuscript, Figure 5a, Figure 5b, Figure 5c, and Figure SF1 are inaccurate. The issue in these figures is that they were all prepared with an incorrect indexing relating observed and simulated discharge, hence observations at any one location were consistently being compared to simulations at another different location. As a result, all values of "measured" discharge errors (i.e. Bias, STDE, and RMSE) are incorrect. This issue did not affect the values of "estimated" errors, nor did it affect all values of the Nash-Sutcliffe effeciency that are presented. The figures published in the manuscript can all be recreated using the files in which "BUG_DO_NOT_USE" was appended to the name. Correct figures can also be created using corresponding file names that were not so appended. Note that corrected versions of Figure 5a, Figure 5b, Figure 5c, and Figure SF1 all retain the same strong linear relationships that are discussed in the paper. The slope of the daily discharge STDE trend initially reported as \(\alpha = 0.3876\) in Figure 5c changes to \(\alpha = 0.4507\) after correction. The resulting value of the ideal inflation factor hence changes from \(I = {1 \over 0.3876} \approx 2.58\) to \(I = {1 \over 0.4507} \approx 2.22\). This updated ideal inflation factor has no impact on the conclusions reached in the manuscript because it remains closer to \(I = 2.58\) than to \(I = 1\) or \(I = 5\), <em>i.e.</em> the three values that were evaluated.**对应同行评议发表论文** 本数据集对应于上述发表研究中所使用的全部RRR/RAPID输入与输出文件：埃默里（Emery, C. M.）、戴维（C. H. David）、安德烈亚迪斯（K. M. Andreadis）、特蒙（M. J. Turmon）、里尔（J. T. Reager）与霍布斯（J. M. Hobbs）（2020）：《河网建模的卡尔曼滤波基础原理》，《水文气象学杂志》，第21卷，第453-474页，DOI：10.1175/JHM-D-19-0084.1。若使用本数据集内的任意文件，请同时引用上述论文与本数据集。 **本数据集或关联手稿已知的缺陷与局限性** 已发表手稿的最终版本中，图5a、图5b、图5c及补充图SF1存在错误。该类图表的绘制采用了错误的观测与模拟流量对应索引方式，导致任意测点的观测流量始终与另一测点的模拟流量进行比对。因此，所有“实测”流量误差指标（即偏差Bias、标准偏差误差STDE与均方根误差RMSE）的数值均有误。该问题并未影响“估算”误差的数值，也未影响文中给出的纳什-萨克利夫效率（Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency）全部数值。 手稿中已发表的图表均可通过文件名后缀为"BUG_DO_NOT_USE"的文件重新生成，也可通过未添加该后缀的对应文件名生成正确的图表。需注意，修正后的图5a、图5b、图5c及补充图SF1仍保留了论文中讨论的强线性相关关系。 图5c中原报告的日流量STDE趋势斜率(alpha = 0.3876)，修正后变为(alpha = 0.4507)；由此，理想膨胀因子的计算值从(I = frac{1}{0.3876} approx 2.58)变为(I = frac{1}{0.4507} approx 2.22)。该更新后的理想膨胀因子并不会对手稿中的结论产生影响，因为相较于本次研究评估的三个参考值(I=1)、(I=5)与(I=2.58)，修正后的数值仍更接近(I=2.58)。