<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/nlm-dtd/publishing/3.0/journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">GMD</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Geoscientific Model Development</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">GMD</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Geosci. Model Dev.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1991-9603</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/gmd-19-731-2026</article-id><title-group><article-title>Direct assimilation of ground-based microwave radiometer observations with machine learning bias correction based on developments of RTTOV-gb v1.0 and WRFDA v4.5</article-title><alt-title>Direct assimilation of GMWR radiances</alt-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff3">
          <name><surname>Zheng</surname><given-names>Qing</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9470-4655</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff2 aff3">
          <name><surname>Sun</surname><given-names>Wei</given-names></name>
          <email>sunwei@cma.gov.cn</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>Zhiquan</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4917-7686</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Mao</surname><given-names>Jiajia</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>He</surname><given-names>Jieying</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6163-4010</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2 aff3">
          <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>Jian</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff3">
          <name><surname>Jiang</surname><given-names>Xingwen</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Heavy Rain and Drought-Flood Disasters in Plateau and Basin Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province,  Institute of Tibetan Plateau Meteorology, China Meteorological Administration, Chengdu, 610213, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>State Key Laboratory of Severe Weather Meteorological Science and Technology (LaSW),  Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences (CAMS), Beijing, 100081, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Institute of Tibetan Plateau Meteorology, Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, 100081, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, 80307-3000, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Meteorological Observation Center, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing, 100081, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>National Space Science Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Wei Sun (sunwei@cma.gov.cn)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>23</day><month>January</month><year>2026</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>19</volume>
      <issue>2</issue>
      <fpage>731</fpage><lpage>754</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>2</day><month>January</month><year>2025</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>23</day><month>January</month><year>2025</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>24</day><month>December</month><year>2025</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>28</day><month>December</month><year>2025</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2026 Qing Zheng et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026.html">This article is available from https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d2e176">The application of ground-based microwave radiometers (GMWRs), which provide high-quality and continuous vertical atmospheric observations, has traditionally focused on the indirect assimilation of retrieved profiles. This study advanced this application by developing a direct assimilation capability for GMWR radiance observations within the Weather Research and Forecasting Data Assimilation (WRFDA) system, along with a bias correction scheme based on the random forest technique. The proposed bias correction scheme effectively reduced the observation-minus-background (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) biases and standard deviations by 0.83 K (97.1 %) and 1.63 K (64.6 %), respectively. A series of 10 d experiments demonstrated that assimilating GMWR radiances improves both the initial conditions and the forecasts, with additional benefits from higher assimilation frequencies. In the initial conditions, hourly assimilation significantly enhanced low-level temperature and humidity fields, reducing the root-mean-square error (RMSE) for temperature by 6.32 % below 1 km and for water vapor mixing ratio by 1.98 % below 5 km. These improvements extended to forecasts, where 2 m temperature and humidity showed sustained benefits for over 12 h, and precipitation forecasts exhibited improvements to a certain extent. The time-averaged Fractions Skill Score (FSS) for 3 h accumulated precipitation within the 24 h forecasts increased by 0.02–0.04 (3.9 %–10.2 %) for thresholds of 3–6 mm.</p>
  </abstract>
    
<funding-group>
<award-group id="gs1">
<funding-source>National Key Research and Development Program of China</funding-source>
<award-id>2023YFC3007504</award-id>
</award-group>
<award-group id="gs2">
<funding-source>State Key Laboratory of Severe Weather</funding-source>
<award-id>2025QZA06</award-id>
</award-group>
<award-group id="gs3">
<funding-source>National Natural Science Foundation of China</funding-source>
<award-id>42475013</award-id>
<award-id>U2442214</award-id>
</award-group>
<award-group id="gs4">
<funding-source>Sichuan Provincial Science and Technology Support Program</funding-source>
<award-id>2024YFFK0110</award-id>
</award-group>
</funding-group>
</article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d2e200">Data assimilation (DA), a core component of numerical weather prediction (NWP), plays an important role in improving forecast accuracy by integrating observational data to refine initial conditions (Bauer et al., 2015; Gustafsson et al., 2018). Among various types of observations, microwave radiance data are crucial for DA due to their ability to penetrate the atmosphere and their sensitivity to temperature, humidity, clouds, and precipitation. Correspondingly, satellite-borne microwave radiance observations have been extensively studied and are considered among the most influential contributors to data assimilation systems (Geer et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2020; Candy and Migliorini, 2021).</p>
      <p id="d2e203">Unlike satellite-borne microwave radiometers, ground-based microwave radiometers (GMWRs) offer unique advantages for DA, including high temporal resolution (minute-level) and greater sensitivity to the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL). Over the past two decades, the assimilation of GMWRs has been increasingly studied, leading to improvements in the accuracy of NWP (Vandenberghe and Ware, 2002; Otkin, 2010; Hartung et al., 2011; Otkin et al., 2011; Caumont et al., 2016; He et al., 2020; Qi et al., 2021, 2022; Lin et al., 2023). The assimilation of retrieved temperature and humidity profiles from GMWRs has shown improvements in forecasting fog, storms, and precipitation. However, the reliance on indirect assimilation methods introduces uncertainties and complicates error quantification, which limits their overall effectiveness in enhancing forecast accuracy (Caumont et al., 2016; Martinet et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2023).</p>
      <p id="d2e206">Direct assimilation of GMWR radiances, which bypasses the retrieval process, offers significant advantages by avoiding retrieval-related errors and improving the effective use of observations. This approach requires accurate observation operators and robust bias correction to address differences between radiance observations and model states. The direct assimilation of satellite-borne radiance observations is relatively mature (Geer et al., 2008; Bauer et al., 2010; Geer et al., 2010; Eyre et al., 2020; Sun and Xu, 2021; Eyre et al., 2022) and utilizes fast radiative transfer models (RTMs) as observation operators, such as the Radiative Transfer for Television and Infrared Observation Satellite (RTTOV) (Saunders et al., 2018). However, the unique characteristics of upward-looking GMWR observations, such as sensitivity to near-surface conditions, require specialized RTMs and adaptation of existing techniques. Recent studies have developed fast RTMs suitable for GMWRs, which provide a foundation for constructing observation operators for assimilation of GMWR radiances (De Angelis et al., 2016; Cimini et al., 2019; Shi et al., 2025). The RTTOV-gb, a ground-based version of the RTTOV model, was used to simulate brightness temperature from GMWRs, demonstrating high accuracy (De Angelis et al., 2016, 2017; Cimini et al., 2019). Recent studies have demonstrated the potential of direct GMWR radiance assimilation using RTTOV-gb to improve temperature, humidity, and precipitation forecasts (Cao et al., 2023; Vural et al., 2024).</p>
      <p id="d2e209">Despite these advancements, previous studies have typically relied on limited GMWR networks or focused on specific case studies. Additionally, research conducted in regions with relatively simple terrain may not fully address the complexities of areas like the Tibetan Plateau, where complex topography often leads to significant model biases (Yang et al., 2020; Wei et al., 2021). These biases make accurate bias correction essential for improving the effectiveness of direct assimilation, while traditional bias correction approaches developed for satellite-borne microwave radiance observations are not directly applicable to GMWRs.</p>
      <p id="d2e213">To address these issues, this study integrates RTTOV-gb into the Weather Research and Forecasting Data Assimilation (WRFDA) system (Barker et al., 2012) to develop a direct assimilation module for GMWR radiances. A nonlinear bias correction scheme based on machine learning is also constructed using three months of observational data. The impact of direct GMWR assimilation is then investigated through a series of 10 d experiments conducted in Southwest China, a region shaped by the influence of the Tibetan Plateau and characterized by complex terrain. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the data, the implementation of RTTOV-gb in WRFDA, and the model configuration. Section 3 evaluates the performance of the bias correction scheme. Section 4 presents the impacts of GMWR assimilation on the initial and forecast fields. The conclusions and discussion are presented in Sect. 5.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Methodology</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Data</title>
      <p id="d2e231">Two types of GMWR sensors were assimilated in this study, as shown in Fig. 1: the MP3000A and the Humidity And Temperature PROfiler (HATPRO). Atmospheric radiance is measured as brightness temperatures in 14 channels for HATPRO and 22 channels for MP3000A (Table 1). For HATPRO, channels 1–7 are in the K-band, while channels 8–14 are in the V-band. For MP3000A, channels 1–8 are in the K-band, and channels 9–22 are in the V-band. The K-band channels correspond to humidity-sensitive water vapor absorption lines, whereas the V-band channels correspond to temperature-sensitive oxygen absorption lines.</p>

      <fig id="F1"><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d2e236">Computational domain (shaded). The shading denotes topography (units: m). The green rectangle denotes the target region of Southwest China. The blue open circles denote radiosondes. The “x” and “<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>” symbols denote HATPRO and MP3000A, respectively.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

<table-wrap id="T1" specific-use="star"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d2e255">Central frequency for GMWRs.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="4.5cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="4.5cm"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sensor</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Frequencies for K-band (GHz)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Frequencies for V-band (GHz)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">HATPRO</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22.240</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">23.040</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">23.840</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25.440</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">26.240</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">27.840</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31.400</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">51.260</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">52.280</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">53.860</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">54.940</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">56.660</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">57.300</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">58.000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MP3000A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22.234</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22.500</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">23.034</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">23.834</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25.000</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">26.234</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">28.000</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30.000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">51.248</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">51.760</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">52.280</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">52.804</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">53.336</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">53.848</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">54.400</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">54.940</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">55.500</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">56.020</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">56.660</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">57.288</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">57.964</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">58.800</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d2e513">The Fengyun-4B (FY-4B) Advanced Geostationary Radiation Imager (AGRI) cloud mask (CLM) is used to identify GMWR-observed brightness temperatures under clear-sky conditions. The AGRI-based CLM product has a temporal resolution of 15 min and a horizontal resolution of 4 km, categorizing conditions as confidently cloudy, probably cloudy, probably clear, or confidently clear, with corresponding values of 0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Min et al., 2017). Due to its high quality, this cloud mask product is widely applied in satellite data assimilation (Yin et al., 2020, 2021; Xu et al., 2023; Shen et al., 2024).</p>
      <p id="d2e516">The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Final Operational Global Analysis data (FNL) (0.25° <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25°, 6-hourly) were used to establish the initial and boundary conditions for regional NWP. Conventional observations from the Global Telecommunications System (GTS) were assimilated and evaluated, including land surface, marine surface, radiosonde, and aircraft reports. The hourly precipitation analysis product from the China Meteorological Administration Multisource Precipitation Analysis System (Shen et al., 2014) was used for evaluation. This dataset has been widely used in precipitation studies (Xia et al., 2019; Su et al., 2020; Sun and Xu, 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2024).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Assimilation system and observation operator</title>
      <p id="d2e534">The WRFDA system, developed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), is designed for data assimilation and includes three-dimensional variational (3DVAR), four-dimensional variational (4DVAR), and hybrid data assimilation algorithms. In this study, version 4.5 of the WRFDA system with 3DVAR is used for the direct assimilation of GMWR radiances. The 3DVAR algorithm produces the analysis by minimizing a scalar objective cost function:

            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M14" display="block"><mml:mtable rowspacing="0.2ex" class="split" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi>J</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">B</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represent the analysis and background fields of the model variables, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the vector of the observations, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">B</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> represent the background and observation error covariance matrices, respectively. The covariance matrices determine the weights assigned to the background and observations in the analysis, dictate how localized observation information is distributed vertically and horizontally in the model space, and maintain the balance among the model's control variables. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the nonlinear observation operator that transforms model variables to the observed quantities. The observation operator works slightly differently for different types of observations. For conventional observations (e.g., temperature), its primary role is to perform spatiotemporal interpolation of model grid values to the observation space. For unconventional observations (e.g., reflectivity and radiance), where the model state cannot be directly compared with the observations, the observation operator must also convert model variables into observed variables.</p>
      <p id="d2e694">The static background error covariance for the variational experiments is estimated using the National Meteorological Center (NMC) method (Parrish and Derber, 1992), which uses the difference between forecasts at lead times of 24 and 12 h (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">24</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> h minus <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> h) valid at the same time over a specified period. Control variables option 5 (CV5) is adopted for the background error covariance used in 3DVAR. CV5 is domain-dependent and therefore must be generated based on forecast or ensemble data over the same domain. It utilizes streamfunction, unbalanced velocity potential, unbalanced temperature, unbalanced surface pressure, and pseudo relative humidity. In this study, the background error covariance matrix was generated using the Generalized Background Error Covariance Matrix Model (GEN_BE v2.0) (Descombes et al., 2015) based on one month of forecasts. Observation-error correlations are typically assumed to be zero in WRFDA, resulting in a diagonal observation-error covariance matrix. Observation errors were specified based on the standard deviation of observation-minus-background <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d2e737">RTMs serve as observation operators for assimilating radiance data by mapping model variables (e.g., temperature and water vapor) into radiance space. RTTOV, a fast RTM, is widely used for assimilating satellite radiance data. However, GMWR radiances are upward-looking microwave observations, differing from the downward-looking measurements of satellite-borne microwave radiometers. This difference in direction makes RTTOV difficult to apply to GMWR radiance assimilation. Fortunately, RTTOV-gb can simulate brightness temperatures from GMWRs and serves as the observation operator in this study. The weighting function (WF) quantifies the contribution of emissions from each atmospheric layer, and the maximum WF height indicates which atmospheric layer contributes most to the measured radiance (Carrier et al., 2008). According to Cui et al. (2020), WFs are calculated as the derivative of transmittance with respect to the natural logarithm of pressure. The vertical distribution of WFs for HATPRO and MP3000A, calculated using RTTOV-gb, is shown in Fig. 2a–b. The WFs reach their maximum at 1000 hPa and decrease monotonically with height. These results confirm that the lower atmosphere contributes most to the observed radiance across all channels, consistent with the findings of  Shu et al. (2012).</p>

      <fig id="F2" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d2e743">Normalized weighting functions of <bold>(a)</bold> HATPRO and <bold>(b)</bold> MP3000A calculated using RTTOV-gb. The <bold>(c, d)</bold> horizontal and <bold>(e, f)</bold> vertical analysis increments for <bold>(c, e)</bold> temperature and <bold>(d, f)</bold> water vapor mixing ratio in single-observation assimilation experiment. The vertical increments are cross-sections along the green lines shown in the horizontal increments. The colorbar tick labels for temperature and water vapor mixing ratio are expressed in scientific notation as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e807">It should be noted that RTTOV-gb is not included in the publicly available version of WRFDA. To address this limitation, a GMWR direct assimilation module was developed within WRFDA. A single-observation assimilation experiment was conducted to test the GMWR direct assimilation module. In this experiment, a pseudo radiance observation from the HATPRO sensor was assimilated at channel 6 (K-band), with an assigned observation error of 1 K and an innovation of 2 K. Results confirm that the GMWR direct assimilation module performs correctly. The temperature and water vapor increments are horizontally isotropic and show a maximum at lower atmospheric levels vertically (Fig. 2c–f). It should also be noted that this experiment was conducted to verify the correct performance of the GMWR direct assimilation module and to provide valuable insights into the characteristics of GMWR assimilation. However, it is not representative of the subsequent multi-observation, multi-channel assimilation experiments.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Model configuration and experimental design</title>
      <p id="d2e818">In this study, version 4.5 of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model (Skamarock et al., 2021) is used to simulate atmospheric evolution. The simulation employs a single domain (Fig. 1) with a horizontal resolution of 3 km, comprising 1261 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 811 grid points and 51 vertical levels, with the top boundary at 10 hPa. The model physics configuration includes the Morrison two-moment microphysics scheme (Morrison et al., 2009), the Yonsei University PBL scheme (Hong et al., 2006), the Rapid Radiative Transfer Model for General Circulation Models (RRTMG) shortwave and longwave radiation schemes (Iacono et al., 2008), and the unified Noah land-surface model (Chen and Dudhia, 2001). Cumulus parameterization was excluded due to the convection-permitting horizontal resolution of 3 km (Li et al., 2023; Moker et al., 2018).</p>
      <p id="d2e828">Similar to previous studies (Jiang et al., 2017; Nie and Sun, 2023), the target region of Southwest China in this study is defined as the area within the rectangular domain 22–35° N, 93–110° E (Fig. 1). This region encompasses the Hengduan Mountains, the Yunnan–Guizhou Plateau, and the Sichuan Basin. Based on the model configuration described above, four parallel experiments were conducted to investigate the impact of GMWR assimilation (Table 2). Each experiment started at 12:00 UTC daily, followed by a 12 h cycling data assimilation period and a subsequent 24 h forecast. The primary differences among these experiments lie in the assimilated data and assimilation intervals. The CNTL experiment assimilated GTS data with a 6 h interval, while the GMWR_6H experiment added GMWR assimilation to the CNTL setup, enabling an evaluation of GMWR assimilation's impact. The other two experiments, GMWR_3H and GMWR_1H, assimilated both GTS and GMWR data with 3 and 1 h intervals, respectively, to assess the effects of observation frequency in GMWR assimilation.</p>

<table-wrap id="T2"><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d2e834">Experimental design.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Experiment</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Assimilated Data</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Assimilation</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Interval</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CNTL</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GTS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">6 h</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GMWR_6H</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GTS and GMWR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">6 h</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GMWR_3H</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GTS and GMWR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3 h</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GMWR_1H</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GTS and GMWR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1 h</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d2e925">The assimilation experiments were conducted under clear-sky conditions due to the uncertainties in the model and observation operators under cloudy or rainy conditions. All experiments were conducted over a 10 d period from 13 to 22 October 2023. Among the available GMWR observations from August to October 2023, this period exhibited a notably higher frequency of clear-sky data, which was more favorable for demonstrating the role and potential of GMWR assimilation. Before implementing bias correction, clear-sky screening, first-guess departure check, and whitelist check were sequentially applied to improve measurement quality. Subsequently, a relative departure check was applied prior to minimization. For the 6, 3, and 1 h assimilation intervals, 34 (0.91 %), 70 (1.42 %), and 76 (0.72 %) observations were rejected, respectively. Although the experiment with a 1 h assimilation interval rejected the largest number of observations, its rejection rate remains the lowest because it has the highest assimilation frequency and assimilates the largest volume of GMWR data. The detailed procedure prior to a single assimilation cycle is as follows: <list list-type="order"><list-item>
      <p id="d2e930"><italic>Observation Selection</italic>. The observation nearest to the analysis time within <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 min is selected.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d2e943"><italic>Clear-sky Screening.</italic> Clear-sky GMWR observations are screened using the AGRI-based CLM, with background-simulated cloud liquid water path equal to zero.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d2e949"><italic>First-Guess Departure Check.</italic> Observations with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mo>|</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mo>|</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> values greater than 20 K are excluded.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d2e981"><italic>Whitelist Check</italic>. Observations from stations identified as unreliable or displaying abnormal behavior are removed.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d2e987"><italic>Bias Correction</italic>. A machine learning bias correction scheme is applied (see Sect. 3.2).</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d2e993"><italic>Relative Departure Check</italic>. This check is applied when the absolute value of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exceeds three times the standard deviation of the observational error, further rejecting questionable data.</p></list-item></list></p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Machine learning based bias correction for GMWR</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Bias characteristics</title>
      <p id="d2e1026">Variational assimilation assumes that both observation and background errors follow an unbiased Gaussian distribution. However, due to instrument errors, limitations of the RTMs, and errors in the NWP model background, observed brightness temperatures (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mi>O</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and simulated brightness temperatures (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) inherently contain errors (denoted as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which may exhibit a biased distribution. Bias correction is a crucial process in radiance data assimilation, aiming to identify and remove these biases (Auligné et al., 2007; Dee, 2005). In the real atmosphere, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mi>O</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are regarded as the true value (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) plus their respective deviations <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, as shown in Eq. (2):

            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M40" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          It shows that the statistical expectation value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can represent the systematic deviation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Therefore, it is critical to evaluate the bias characteristics of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and correct them.</p>
      <p id="d2e1197">To estimate the bias and develop a bias correction scheme for GMWR direct assimilation, a long-term experiment was conducted from August to October 2023, yielding a three-month sample dataset. In this experiment, the WRF model was initialized every 6 h using NCEP FNL data, and WRFDA operated hourly in monitoring mode (only calculating <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). After a cloud check using the AGRI-based CLM and a gross check (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>|</mml:mo><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>|</mml:mo><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K), the bias of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for HATPRO and MP3000A was estimated.</p>
      <p id="d2e1244">A comparative scatterplot analysis of observed and simulated brightness temperatures was conducted. For most channels, the scatter points are closely aligned along the diagonal and exhibit high correlation coefficients, indicating strong agreement between the simulations and observations. However, the scatter points for some channels form two distinct clusters. To further investigate, representative channels from the K-band (water vapor absorption lines) and the V-band (temperature-sensitive oxygen absorption lines) were selected. Figure 3 presents scatterplots for channel 1 (K-band) and channel 13 (V-band) of HATPRO, as well as channel 1 (K-band) and channel 14 (V-band) of MP3000A. Results for the remaining channels are shown in Figs. A1 and A2. For HATPRO, more than 6000 samples were analyzed. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> biases were 1.25 K for channel 1 and 2.14 K for channel 13, with standard deviations (SDs) of 3.35 and 2.82 K, respectively. Additionally, the scatter distribution for channel 13 is not centered, showing a cluster shifted to the right of the diagonal (Fig. 3b). For MP3000A, more than 2000 samples were analyzed, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> biases of 3.06 K for channel 1 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.54 K for channel 14. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> SDs were 3.94 and 3.08 K, respectively. Similar to the results for HATPRO channel 13 (V-band), the scatter points for MP3000A channel 14 (V-band) also show a cluster offset from the diagonal, but to the left (Fig. 3d). Based on these results, significant <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> biases are detected in GMWR observations, with their characteristics varying across different sensors and channels. However, the correlation coefficients between observed and simulated brightness temperatures are high, at least 0.95, suggesting that these biases can be effectively corrected.</p>

      <fig id="F3"><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d2e1305">Scatterplots of observed brightness temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) versus simulated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, based on samples collected from August to October 2023. The top and bottom rows correspond to the HATPRO and MP3000A sensors, and the left and right columns represent the K-band and V-band, respectively. Each panel displays the number of samples (num), the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mean (bias), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> standard deviation (SD), and the correlation coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) between observed and simulated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. </p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e1379">To further analyze the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> bias characteristics at each station and investigate the reasons for the band shifting from the diagonal (Fig. 3b and d), the statistics for each station are presented in Fig. 4. For HATPRO, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> bias varies among stations. Stations near complex topography (e.g., 56312, 56137, 56029, and 55664) exhibit notable positive <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> biases in channels 8–13 (Fig. 4a), leading to a rightward shift of the band relative to the diagonal (Fig. 3b). These positive biases may result from biases in the background field over the topographic region, the limited applicability of RTTOV-gb coefficients, or calibration issues in the observations. Overall, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> SD at each station for the K-band is larger than that for the V-band (Fig. 4b). The correlation coefficients between observed and simulated brightness temperatures are high across all channels (typically above 0.90), although they are slightly lower for channels 4–9. For MP3000A, station 57461 exhibits a negative <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> bias in channels 9–14 (Fig. 4d), contributing to the band shifting to the left of the diagonal (Fig. 3d). Similar to the results for HATPRO, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> SD in the K-band is generally larger than that in the V-band (Fig. 4e), and the correlation coefficients are also overall higher, typically exceeding 0.90 (Fig. 4f).</p>

      <fig id="F4" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d2e1457">Statistics at each station based on samples collected from August to October 2023. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(a)</bold> bias and <bold>(b)</bold> standard deviation (SD) for HATPRO; <bold>(c)</bold> correlation coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) between observed and simulated brightness temperatures for HATPRO; <bold>(d)</bold>–<bold>(f)</bold> same as <bold>(a)</bold>–<bold>(c)</bold> but for MP3000A. Some stations did not provide observations for specific channels; the corresponding missing data are displayed in grey in the figure.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Bias correction</title>
      <p id="d2e1515">Based on the results above, noticeable <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> biases were observed, varying across sensors, channels, and the geographical locations of stations. It is essential to remove these biases before assimilation. Static bias correction (Harris and Kelly, 2001) and variational bias correction (Dee, 2005) are commonly used in radiance data assimilation. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> bias is commonly represented using multiple linear regression with several predictors. Compared to linear estimates, nonlinear approaches show improved performance in reducing systematic biases (Zhang et al., 2023, 2024). Following these works, this study employed a machine learning–based bias correction scheme using the Random Forest (RF) technique (Breiman, 2001).</p>
      <p id="d2e1542">According to Yin et al. (2020), the predictors include the 1000–300 hPa thickness, 200–50 hPa thickness, model surface skin temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and total precipitable water (PW). Considering that GMWRs are sensitive to the lower atmosphere, the predictors also include 1000–700 hPa thickness, 700–500 hPa thickness, 500–300 hPa thickness, 2 m temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), 2 m water vapor mixing ratio (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), 10 m zonal wind (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), 10 m meridional wind (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and surface pressure (PS). Finally, latitude, longitude, and observed brightness temperatures (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) are included as predictors due to their potential importance (Zhang et al., 2023). The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> biases vary across sensors and channels. Therefore, a separate model is trained for each sensor and channel. Biases also vary across the geographical locations of stations, potentially influenced by the large-scale topography of the Tibetan Plateau. As predictors, 2 m temperature, surface pressure, latitude and longitude are important for explaining these biases.</p>
      <p id="d2e1624">There are two types of parameters in machine learning models: model parameters and hyperparameters. Model parameters are initialized and updated during the learning process. Hyperparameters, on the other hand, cannot be directly estimated from data. They must be configured before training because they define the model's architecture. Building an optimal machine learning model requires exploring a range of possibilities. The process of determining the ideal model architecture and hyperparameter configuration is known as hyperparameter tuning, which is a key component of developing an effective machine learning model   (Yang and Shami, 2020).</p>
      <p id="d2e1627">The RF model has four key hyperparameters: the number of trees in the forest (<italic>n_estimators</italic>), the maximum depth of a tree (<italic>max_depth</italic>), the minimum number of samples required to split an internal node (<italic>min_samples_split</italic>), and the minimum number of samples required to be at a leaf node (<italic>min_samples_leaf</italic>). These hyperparameters were tuned using scikit-learn's GridSearchCV (Pedregosa et al., 2011) with 5-fold cross-validation, which exhaustively searches over a predefined range of hyperparameters, training and evaluating the model for each configuration. The flowchart illustrating the training and evaluation process of the bias correction (BC) model is shown in Fig. 5. The three-month sample dataset (described in Sect. 3.1) was randomly split into a training set (70 %) and a test set (30 %). During training, GridSearchCV constructed a large grid of possible hyperparameter configurations, iteratively trained and evaluated the model for each, and calculated a score. Finally, the optimized model was trained using the configuration with the highest score.</p>

      <fig id="F5" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d2e1645">Flowchart of the training and evaluation of bias correction model.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e1654">To investigate the impact of hyperparameters on model training time and performance, the fit time and score of the RF model under various hyperparameter settings were analyzed (figure not shown). During hyperparameter tuning, <italic>n_estimators</italic> was varied between 10 and 150, <italic>max_depth</italic> was adjusted from 5 to 30, <italic>min_samples_leaf</italic> was tested with values between 1 and 3, and <italic>min_samples_split</italic> was tuned in the range of 2 to 6. Overall, the fit time and score tended to increase together. As the <italic>min_samples_leaf</italic> and <italic>min_samples_split</italic> parameters increased, both fit time and score decreased monotonically. Conversely, increasing the <italic>max_depth</italic> and <italic>n_estimators</italic> parameters resulted in a monotonic increase in both fit time and score. Notably, <italic>max_depth</italic> had the most significant impact on the score, while <italic>n_estimators</italic> primarily affected the fit time. For <italic>n_estimators</italic>, the score increased logarithmically, while the fit time grew linearly. These findings suggest that selecting a moderately small value for the <italic>n_estimators</italic> parameter can achieve better results while reducing computational time.</p>
      <p id="d2e1695">Using the above BC model, the corrected <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values are obtained by subtracting the predicted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> bias from the original <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values. The effectiveness of the BC model is assessed based on the probability density functions (PDFs) of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> distributions in the test set (see Fig. 6 and Appendix B). Similar to Fig. 3, channel 1 (K-band) and channel 13 (V-band) of HATPRO, as well as channel 1 (K-band) and channel 14 (V-band) of MP3000A, are selected for detailed analysis (Fig. 6). For HATPRO channels 1 and 13, the biases (SDs) are 1.24 K (3.38 K) and 2.21 K (2.90 K), respectively. For MP3000A channels 1 and 14, the biases (SDs) are 3.00 K (3.89 K) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.64 K (3.08 K), respectively. The differences between the test set (Fig. 6) and the full dataset (Fig. 3) are negligible, with maximum differences in bias and SD of 0.10 and 0.08 K, respectively, highlighting the strong representativeness of the test set. The original PDFs generally exhibit a unimodal shape, although their peaks deviate from zero. Moreover, some channels display bimodal features, often manifested as secondary peaks superimposed on the primary distribution – an issue that may affect 3DVAR, which typically assumes the errors to follow an unbiased Gaussian distribution.</p>

      <fig id="F6"><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d2e1755">Probability density functions (PDFs) of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> distributions, based on a test set randomly selected from 30 % of the three-month sample dataset collected from August to October 2023. The top and bottom rows correspond to the HATPRO and MP3000A sensors, respectively, while the left and right columns represent the K-band and V-band, respectively. Each panel displays the number of samples (num), the mean (bias), standard deviation (SD), skewness, and kurtosis of the distributions.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e1776">After applying the BC model, both the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> bias and SD are reduced, and the distribution becomes more sharply concentrated around zero, accompanied by an increase in kurtosis. For instance, in HATPRO channel 1, the bias (SD) decreases from 1.24 K (3.38 K) to 0.03 K (1.44 K), respectively, while the kurtosis markedly increases from 1.53 to 9.44. It is noted that the PDFs of corrected <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> approximate an unbiased distribution, and the secondary peaks are effectively suppressed. These results confirm that the proposed BC scheme effectively reduces both the bias and SD in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> statistics, transforming the PDFs from a bimodal to a unimodal distribution. The bimodal feature in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> PDFs corresponds to the two distinct clusters observed in the scatter plots shown in Fig. 3. Specifically, when one cluster is concentrated along the diagonal and the other shifts to the right, a peak forms on the positive <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-axis of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> PDFs, resulting in a bimodal distribution. From the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> PDFs (Fig. 6), both instruments exhibit a positive bias with a unimodal distribution in the K-band. In contrast, the V-band displays a bimodal distribution: the second peak appears on the right for HATPRO and on the left for MP3000A. These results are consistent with the scatter plots shown in Fig. 3. After BC, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> PDFs change from a bimodal to a unimodal distribution, indicating that the two clusters have been effectively merged.</p>
      <p id="d2e1872">Figure 7 illustrates the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> bias and SD for each HATPRO channel. Before BC, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> bias ranged from 0 to 2 K, with the bias in the K-band (particularly channels 4–7) smaller than that in the V-band. After BC, the bias for each channel is approximately 0 K. In terms of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> SD, values ranged from 2 to 4 K without BC, with channels 4–7 exhibiting smaller values compared to other channels. After BC, the SD of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ranges between 0.5 and 1.5 K. The application of this BC model significantly reduced both the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> bias and SD, with reductions of 0.83 K (97.1 %) and 1.63 K (64.6 %), respectively. Meanwhile, the corrected <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> distributions display approximately Gaussian characteristics centered around zero, indicating effective removal of systematic <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> biases.</p>

      <fig id="F7"><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d2e1962"><bold>(a)</bold> Bias and <bold>(b)</bold> standard deviation (SD) of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, based on a test set randomly selected from 30 % of the three-month sample dataset collected from August to October 2023. <bold>(c)</bold> Feature importance of the predictors used in the bias correction (BC) model. For each band, the shaded regions and solid lines represent the range and mean feature importance, respectively.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e1991">Diagnosing the contributions of each predictor is crucial. Figure 7c illustrates the feature importance of several predictors for HATPRO. This BC model normalizes the feature importance scores so that their sum equals 1. A higher score reflects a stronger influence of the predictor on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> biases. Observed brightness temperature, total precipitable water, and surface pressure are significant contributors to BC for the K-band (water vapor channels). For the V-band (temperature channels), observed brightness temperature, latitude, and surface pressure are the most influential predictors. The contributions of atmospheric thickness predictors are smaller compared to the other predictors; however, the 1000–700 hPa thickness predictor has a relatively larger contribution among them. This may be because GMWR primarily observes radiation from the lower atmosphere. Notably, surface pressure plays a critical role in BC for the V-band, which may account for the positive bias in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observed at plateau stations (Fig. 4a).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Direct assimilation of GMWR radiance observations</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Assimilation impacts on initial conditions</title>
      <p id="d2e2034">The performance of GMWR assimilation in the observation space was evaluated. Figure 8 summarizes the biases and SDs of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and observation minus analysis (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) statistics, aggregated over time for different channels. The bias of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was reduced compared to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, particularly in the V-band. Specifically, for channel 11 of GMWR_1H (1 h assimilation interval), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.40 K and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.13 K. When GMWR observations were assimilated, the simulated brightness temperatures became closer to the observations, resulting in smaller SDs. Moreover, as the frequency of GMWR observation assimilation increases, the bias and SD of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> gradually converge toward zero. For channel 3, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> SD in GMWR_6H, GMWR_3H, and GMWR_1H significantly decreased from 1.03, 0.92, and 0.56 K to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> SD values of 0.36, 0.34, and 0.34 K, respectively. Although the differences in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> among experiments are less noticeable, the improvement of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> suggests that increasing the frequency in cycling assimilation accumulates the impact of the GMWRs, producing a higher- quality first-guess field for the final cycle. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> statistics were also computed based on the initial fields from the CNTL experiment. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> bias in CNTL is slightly larger than that in the GMWR assimilation experiments, with a more noticeable difference in the V-band. Regarding the SD, the CNTL experiment shows higher values across all channels, with the largest difference approaching 1 K. These results suggest that assimilating GMWR data improves the consistency between the initial fields and the observed brightness temperatures. The assimilation of GMWR observations effectively influences the brightness temperatures, demonstrating the successful processing of GMWR data by the 3DVAR system.</p>

      <fig id="F8"><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d2e2211">Verification of the initial conditions against GMWR observations, based on the 10 d assimilation experiment conducted from 13 to 22 October 2023. <bold>(a)</bold> Bias and <bold>(b)</bold> standard deviation (SD) of the observation minus background (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and observation minus analysis (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) for the GMWR assimilation in the target region of Southwest China (green rectangle in Fig. 1).</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e2250">The above evaluation demonstrates the successful implementation of the newly introduced GMWR radiance direct assimilation in WRFDA. However, compared to brightness temperature simulations, greater attention should be given to the model state variables in the initial conditions, as they directly influence subsequent model forecasts. To this end, radiosonde observations in the target region of Southwest China were used to evaluate the impact of GMWR assimilation. The root-mean-square error (RMSE) was calculated, and the RMSE differences between CNTL and other assimilation experiments are shown in Fig. 9. Results indicate that assimilating GMWR radiances enhances low-level temperature and humidity fields, with higher assimilation frequencies offering the potential for additional improvements. GMWR assimilation has a neutral impact on atmospheric temperature above 1 km above ground level (a.g.l.), where the RMSE difference is minimal. However, it positively impacts lower atmospheric temperature, with the RMSE for temperature decreasing below 1 km a.g.l. Specifically, the average RMSE improvements below 1 km are 3.67 %, 5.28 %, and 6.32 % for GMWR_6H, GMWR_3H, and GMWR_1H, respectively. This indicates that increasing assimilation frequency enhances observational impacts and further improves the initial conditions. The improvement becomes more pronounced with decreasing altitude. At 100 m a.g.l., RMSE reductions are 0.10 K (6.25 %), 0.13 K (7.90 %), and 0.19 K (11.34 %) in GMWR_6H, GMWR_3H, and GMWR_1H, respectively. For the water vapor mixing ratio (QVAPOR), GMWR assimilation demonstrates a positive impact extending into the middle troposphere, with average RMSE reductions below 5 km of 2.30 %, 2.20 %, and 1.98 % for GMWR_6H, GMWR_3H, and GMWR_1H, respectively. The impact of GMWR assimilation and the effect of assimilation frequency are generally more pronounced in the lower atmosphere, with average RMSE reductions below 300 m of 3.01 % for GMWR_1H, compared to 2.43 % for GMWR_6H and 2.05 % for GMWR_3H.</p>

      <fig id="F9" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d2e2256">Verification of the initial conditions against radiosonde observations. RMSEs are computed from all samples over the 10 d assimilation experiment conducted from 13 to 22 October 2023. Root mean square error (RMSE) of <bold>(a)</bold> temperature, <bold>(b)</bold> water vapor mixing ratio (QVAPOR), <bold>(c)</bold> zonal wind, and <bold>(d)</bold> meridional wind in the target region of Southwest China (green rectangle in Fig. 1).</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e2277">It should be noted that the GMWR assimilation shows a slight degradation in the wind fields. The RMSE for zonal and meridional winds exhibits a slight negative effect when GMWR is assimilated, with meridional winds even showing an increase in RMSE. These negative impacts on the wind field caused by GMWR assimilation may be attributed to two factors: (1) When assimilating observed brightness temperatures, the adjoint model of the observation operator directly adjusts temperature and humidity to optimize the simulation, while changes in the wind field are indirectly driven by these adjustments through the background error covariance. (2) GMWR assimilation primarily improves the lower atmosphere, while changes in the upper atmosphere are also governed by the background error covariance. The static background error covariance used here is climatological and isotropic, which does not fully align with evolving weather conditions, potentially resulting in ineffective wind field improvements.</p>
      <p id="d2e2280">Based on the evaluation against radiosonde observations, the assimilation of GMWR data improves the initial fields of temperature and humidity, aligning them more closely with observations, particularly in the lower atmosphere. Additionally, the initial fields are validated against surface station observations, including measurements of 2 m temperature, 2 m relative humidity, and 10 m wind (Fig. 10). The RMSE differences indicate that GMWR assimilation effectively enhances the 2 m temperature and humidity fields. Under 6-hourly GMWR assimilation, the temperature RMSE generally increased on the southern side of the basin, whereas other regions showed a positive effect with reduced RMSE values. Moreover, the temperature RMSE reduction in these positively affected areas further improved as the assimilation frequency increased, with overall differences ranging from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.008 K (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.3 %) to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.099 K (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.1 %). For humidity, GMWR assimilation shows a negative impact on 2 m relative humidity (RH) at a 6 h assimilation frequency. However, the RMSE over the plateau decreases as the assimilation frequency increases, with the RMSE difference shifting from positive to negative. In the GMWR_1H experiment, the RMSE is reduced by 0.276 (1.3 %).</p>

      <fig id="F10" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d2e2313">Verification of the initial conditions against surface station observations, based on the 10 d assimilation experiment conducted from 13 to 22 October 2023. The percentage differences in RMSE (scatter) of temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), relative humidity (RH), zonal wind (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mi>U</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), and meridional wind (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) in the target region of Southwest China (green rectangle in Fig. 1). The grey solid line represents the topography height (m).</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e2343">Unlike the temperature and humidity RMSEs, the improvement in the wind field RMSE does not exhibit a distinct spatial pattern. Compared to the CNTL experiment, the RMSE differences for zonal wind are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.005 m s<sup>−1</sup> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.3 %), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.017 m s<sup>−1</sup> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.0 %), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.019 m s<sup>−1</sup> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.2 %) in GMWR_6H, GMWR_3H, and GMWR_1H, respectively. Similarly, the RMSE differences for meridional wind are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.008 m s<sup>−1</sup> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.5 %), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.011 m s<sup>−1</sup> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.7 %), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.009 m s<sup>−1</sup> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.5 %) in GMWR_6H, GMWR_3H, and GMWR_1H, respectively. While the changes in wind RMSE are relatively small, the results indicate that assimilating GMWR data improves the initial conditions, with higher assimilation frequencies offering potential for further enhancement.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Assimilation impacts on forecast field</title>
      <p id="d2e2513">After presenting the improvements in the initial conditions, this section investigates the impact of GMWR assimilation on the 24 h forecasts. The time series of RMSE for the CNTL experiment and RMSE differences (assimilation experiments minus the CNTL experiment) against surface station observations for 2 m temperature, 2 m relative humidity, and 10 m wind fields are shown in Fig. 11. In the CNTL experiment, the RMSE of temperature and relative humidity initially decreases and then increases with lead time, while the RMSE of the wind field exhibits the opposite trend, increasing at first and then decreasing. The mean RMSEs over the 24 h forecast period are 2.32 K for temperature, 16.26 % for relative humidity, 1.92 m s<sup>−1</sup> for zonal wind, and 2.08 m s<sup>−1</sup> for meridional wind. Regarding assimilation impacts, the RMSE reduction for temperature gradually decreases, approaching zero at a lead time of 6 h, with higher assimilation frequency (GMWR_1H) achieving a greater RMSE reduction. Similar results are observed for relative humidity, where the RMSE reduction also decreases and approaches zero at a lead time of 12 h. GMWR_1H consistently demonstrates the largest RMSE reduction for relative humidity. However, it should be noted that the direct assimilation of GMWR data caused a negative impact on relative humidity at a lead time of 12 h. The degradation of wind fields (Fig. 9) and the model's inherent nonlinearity may be responsible. For the wind field, no increase in the RMSE difference with lead time was observed, as previously described. However, the RMSE differences between the assimilation experiments and the CNTL experiment remain overall negative, indicating that GMWR assimilation improves wind forecasts. Additionally, GMWR_1H demonstrates the largest RMSE reduction in meridional wind, suggesting that increasing the frequency of GMWR assimilation may lead to further improvements. The quantitative statistics are presented in Table 3. The temperature RMSE differences between GMWR_6H and CNTL are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.012, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.005, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.004 K for lead times of 1–6, 1–12, and 1–24 h, respectively. This gradual decrease in RMSE differences with increasing forecast time is also observed in other experiments and variables, indicating a weakening of the positive impact of GMWR assimilation as the forecast period extends. When the impact of GMWR assimilation is most pronounced (at a lead times of 1–6 h), the temperature RMSE differences range from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.012 K in GMWR_6H to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.014 K in GMWR_3H, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.019 K in GMWR_1H. The temperature RMSE reduction increases with the frequency of GMWR assimilation, a trend also observed in relative humidity and wind, suggesting that increasing the assimilation frequency can further improve the short-term forecasts. Although these differences are small, the results reflect the potential for improved model forecasts with GMWR assimilation.</p>

      <fig id="F11" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d2e2585">Verification of the forecasts against surface station observations, based on the 10 d assimilation experiment conducted from 13 to 22 October 2023. RMSE (black line) for the CNTL experiment and RMSE differences (colored lines) between the assimilation experiments and the CNTL experiment for <bold>(a)</bold> temperature, <bold>(b)</bold> relative humidity, <bold>(c)</bold> zonal wind, and <bold>(d)</bold> meridional wind.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

<table-wrap id="T3" specific-use="star"><label>Table 3</label><caption><p id="d2e2609">RMSE difference against surface station observations.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">EXP</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Lead  time</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Temperature</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Relative  Humidity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Zonal  wind</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Meridional  wind</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(h)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(K)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(m s<sup>−1</sup>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(m s<sup>−1</sup>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GMWR_6H  minus  CNTL</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1–6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.012</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.046</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.006</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.004</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1–12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.005</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.027</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.003</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.006</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1–24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.004</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.046</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.003</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.003</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GMWR_3H  minus  CNTL</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1–6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.014</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.046</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.005</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.005</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1–12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.010</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.036</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.006</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.007</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1–24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.003</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.072</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.005</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.003</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GMWR_1H  minus  CNTL</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1–6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.019</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.127</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.007</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.013</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1–12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.012</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.087</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.006</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.013</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1–24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.005</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.065</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.006</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.009</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d2e3161">Verification against surface station observations indicated that assimilating GMWR radiances improves near-surface forecasts, with higher assimilation frequencies offering potential for further enhancement. To further examine the impact of GMWR assimilation, Fig. 12 presents the forecast verification against radiosonde observations. Unlike the RMSE differences in the initial conditions (Fig. 9), the GMWR assimilation did not reduce RMSE for temperature and water vapor mixing ratio, indicating a neutral impact on forecasts. Similarly, the wind field verification results did not show noticeable improvements with GMWR assimilation. While the RMSE of zonal wind was reduced in the GMWR_1H experiment, the RMSE differences for the wind field in other experiments were close to or greater than zero, suggesting a neutral to slightly negative impact of GMWR assimilation on wind forecasts. Based on radiosonde-based verification at 12 and 24 h lead times, only limited improvements are evident after GMWR assimilation; however, this does not rule out larger impacts within 0–6 h, which cannot be robustly assessed here due to the limited temporal availability of radiosonde observations. The limited improvement shown in this figure could be related to the relatively long forecast lead times (12 and 24 h), during which model errors tend to accumulate and weaken the benefits of improved initial conditions from GMWR assimilation. In the surface-station verification, the improvements were primarily confined to the first few hours, particularly for temperature and humidity. After 12 h, the impact declined noticeably, with some cases even exhibiting negative effects (Fig. 11).</p>

      <fig id="F12" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d2e3166">Same as Fig. 9, but for forecasts at lead times of 12 and 24 h, with RMSEs computed from all forecast samples during the 10 d experiment. </p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e3175">To further explore the role of GMWR assimilation in precipitation forecasting, the fractions skill score (FSS) of 3 h accumulated precipitation forecasts was calculated. The radius of influence for the FSS was set to 18 km, equivalent to six times the grid spacing (Ha and Snyder, 2014; Zheng et al., 2024). Figure 13 presents the time series of FSS for the CNTL experiment and FSS differences (assimilation experiments minus the CNTL experiment). The assimilation experiments were conducted during a period with a high frequency of clear-sky observations. Cloud cover and precipitation were sparse over the 10 d period, resulting in the absence of frequent heavy rainfall events. Consequently, the FSS was calculated using small precipitation thresholds. In the CNTL experiment, the FSS for 3 h accumulated precipitation showed an initial decline followed by a subsequent increase with lead time, with relatively low FSS values observed around the 12 h forecast period. Moreover, the FSS generally decreases as the precipitation threshold increases. The time mean FSS values are 0.47, 0.45, 0.42, and 0.39 for thresholds of 3, 4, 5, and 6 mm, respectively. Regarding the role of GMWR assimilation in precipitation forecasting, the results indicate that assimilating GMWR radiances enhances precipitation forecasts, with FSS differences increasing progressively at higher precipitation thresholds. Additionally, increasing assimilation frequency showed the potential to further enhance forecast performance. When assimilating GMWR data at a 1 h frequency, the time-averaged FSS improvements for 3 h accumulated precipitation are 0.02 (3.9 %) for the 3 mm threshold, 0.02 (4.7 %) for the 4 mm threshold, 0.03 (7.3 %) for the 5 mm threshold, and 0.04 (10.2 %) for the 6 mm threshold precipitation. For 3 h accumulated precipitation with a threshold of 6 mm, the time-averaged FSS improvements are 0.01, 0.02, and 0.03 for GMWR_6H, GMWR_3H, and GMWR_1H, respectively. These findings are consistent with the above verification against surface station observations, suggesting that GMWR assimilation can improve forecasts and that higher-frequency assimilation leads to further enhancements.</p>

      <fig id="F13" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 13</label><caption><p id="d2e3180">The time series of FSS (black line) for the CNTL experiment and FSS differences (colored lines) between the assimilation experiments and the CNTL experiment. These experiments were conducted from 13 to 22 October 2023. The FSS was calculated for 3 h accumulated precipitation with thresholds of <bold>(a)</bold> 3 mm, <bold>(b)</bold> 4 mm, <bold>(c)</bold> 5 mm, and <bold>(d)</bold> 6 mm.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026-f13.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Discussion, conclusions, and future work</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <label>5.1</label><title>Discussion</title>
      <p id="d2e3218">This section discusses (i) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> characteristics and their potential sources, (ii) the effectiveness and physical interpretability of the RF-based bias correction, and (iii) the impacts of direct GMWR radiance assimilation on analyses and forecasts.</p>
      <p id="d2e3233">In the three-month <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> statistics, the SD in the K-band is larger than that in the V-band, consistent with Vural et al. (2024) and Cao et al. (2023). A notable positive <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> bias is observed at high-altitude stations over the Tibetan Plateau, which may be related to large-scale topographic effects. In this region, model simulations may contain errors, and RTTOV-gb coefficients may be inapplicable. The RTTOV-gb coefficients are based on global atmospheric profiles, which may differ significantly from the climatic conditions of plateau regions, potentially affecting simulation accuracy.</p>
      <p id="d2e3260">To mitigate these systematic <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> biases, a machine learning-based BC scheme using the RF technique was developed. The number and depth of trees are critical hyperparameters that must be predetermined. Training time increases approximately linearly with the number of trees, while performance exhibits a logarithmic-like saturation trend. In terms of tree depth, both training time and performance increase approximately logarithmically with depth. Thus, selecting a modest number (<italic>n_estimators</italic>) and depth (<italic>max_depth</italic>) of trees, such as 50 and 15, can balance efficiency and accuracy. Feature importance analysis for BC predictors revealed observed brightness temperature, atmospheric precipitable water, and surface pressure as key factors for correcting biases. The importance of brightness temperatures aligns with findings in satellite data bias correction (Liu et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023). Atmospheric precipitable water is essential for the K-band, a humidity-sensitive channel. Surface pressure plays a key role in temperature channels, thereby accounting for the positive bias observed in plateau regions. Although atmospheric thickness predictors contributed less overall, the 1000–700 hPa thickness was relatively significant, likely due to GMWRs primarily sensing radiation from the lower atmosphere.</p>
      <p id="d2e3281">The machine learning-based BC scheme effectively mitigated the bimodal distribution and systematic errors in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> statistics. To assess its impact on the initial and forecast fields, a parallel experiment without bias correction was conducted, based on the 1 h assimilation interval experiment (GMWR_1H). For the initial fields, as verified against radiosonde observations, the experiment without BC yielded only minor improvements in temperature and even degraded the water vapor field. As for the forecast fields, verification against surface station observations showed that the absence of BC led to a noticeable degradation in the forecast accuracy of 2 m temperature and relative humidity. These findings indicate that the machine learning-based BC scheme had a beneficial impact on both the initial conditions and the subsequent forecasts. Nevertheless, despite its demonstrated effectiveness, the scheme is subject to several limitations. Relying on offline <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> statistics, it implicitly assumes that all biases originate from the observations – an assumption that may not always hold and may, in some instances, mask model biases (Auligné et al., 2007; Eyre, 2016). These limitations motivate further improvements in future work (Sect. 5.2).</p>
      <p id="d2e3309">In this study, direct assimilation of GMWR radiances enhances both the initial conditions and the forecasts, showing potential for improving ABL and precipitation simulations. Although the assimilation of GMWR radiances yields slight improvements in the forecast wind fields (Fig. 11), it exerts an overall negative impact on the wind fields in the initial conditions (Fig. 9). It should be noted that assimilating GMWR radiances improves the wind fields below 500 m a.g.l. in the initial conditions. This improvement is consistent with the verification of the forecast, which demonstrates enhancements in the 10 m wind fields. Regarding the degradation of wind fields above 500 m a.g.l., the background error covariance may contribute to this negative impact. Specifically, it propagates the RTTOV-gb increments concentrated in the ABL to higher levels and induces wind field adjustments in response to temperature and humidity updates.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <label>5.2</label><title>Conclusions and future work</title>
      <p id="d2e3320">To investigate the impact of directly assimilating GMWRs in Southwest China, a GMWR assimilation module has been developed in WRFDA-4.5, where RTTOV-gb is used as the observation operator. Based on this module, a three-month sample dataset of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was collected to evaluate the bias and develop a BC model. Furthermore, 10 d assimilation experiments (Table 2) were conducted using this GMWR assimilation module and BC model to investigate the impact of direct GMWR assimilation and the effects of assimilation frequency. The main findings are as follows:</p>
      <p id="d2e3335">Based on three months of hourly samples, noticeable <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> biases were observed, varying across sensors, channels, and geographical locations. The machine learning-based bias correction scheme, employing an RF model, effectively reduced these <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> systematic biases. After applying this BC model, both the bias and SD of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were substantially reduced. Specifically, the bias and SD decreased by 0.83 K (97.1 %) and 1.63 K (64.6 %), respectively. For some channels, the original <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> distribution exhibited a bimodal pattern, which was transformed into a unimodal distribution after BC. The corrected <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> distributions exhibited Gaussian characteristics centered around zero.</p>
      <p id="d2e3398">Assimilating GMWR radiances enhances the accuracy of initial conditions, with higher assimilation frequencies amplifying the positive impact, particularly for temperature and humidity in the lower atmosphere. Evaluation against radiosonde observations shows that the temperature RMSE below 1 km a.g.l. decreases by 3.67 % to 6.32 % as the assimilation frequency increases from 6 to 1 h. For the water vapor mixing ratio, positive impacts extend up to 5 km a.g.l., with average RMSE improvements ranging from 1.98 % to 2.30 %. Verification against surface station observations further supports these findings, indicating that the RMSE for 2 m temperature decreases by up to 4.1 %, while the RMSE for 2 m relative humidity decreases by up to 1.3 % at the 1 h assimilation frequency.</p>
      <p id="d2e3402">The assimilation of GMWR observations leads to improvements in forecasts, and increasing assimilation frequencies has the potential to yield further improvements. In the first 6 h of the forecast, the temperature RMSE decreases by 0.012, 0.014, and 0.019 K with 6, 3, and 1 h assimilation frequency, respectively. Similar trends are observed for relative humidity, where the experiment with 1 h GMWR assimilation frequency shows the largest decrease in RMSE. GMWR assimilation also improves precipitation forecasts, with further enhancements seen as assimilation frequency increases. For 1 h GMWR assimilation, time-averaged FSS improvements reach 0.02 for both the 3 and  4 mm, 0.03 for the 5 mm, and 0.04 for the 6 mm thresholds.</p>
      <p id="d2e3406">Despite these encouraging results, this study has some limitations that motivate future work. Regarding bias correction, the offline scheme lacks anchoring observations, rendering the analysis fields more susceptible to model bias. Future efforts should consider bias correction strategies based on unbiased reference observations or adopt a constrained correction scheme, such as the constrained adaptive bias correction (Han and Bormann, 2016). The GMWR assimilation was implemented using 3DVAR, based on RTTOV-gb and WRFDA, and only static background-error covariances were employed in this study. The background error covariance matrix plays an important role in variational data assimilation, but this type of covariance is climatological, spatially homogeneous, and isotropic. This may limit the impact of GMWR assimilation, and flow-dependent error covariances should be considered in future work.  Moreover, only clear-sky GMWR radiances were assimilated in this study. Since precipitation processes are often accompanied by extensive cloud cover, few clear-sky GMWR observations were available. To better explore the potential of GMWR assimilation, experiments were conducted during periods with abundant clear-sky GMWR data (e.g., a 10 d period in October 2023), which coincided with minimal heavy precipitation. Studies on satellite all-sky assimilation have shown that incorporating cloud- and precipitation-affected data improves forecasts (Ma et al., 2022; Xian et al., 2019), highlighting the need for future research on all-sky assimilation of GMWRs. Under such conditions, assimilation experiments could be conducted during a different or longer period, given that assimilated GMWR observations would be relatively more abundant. It is noted that GMWRs exhibit higher sensitivity and provide more valuable observations of the lower troposphere and planetary boundary layer compared to satellite-based microwave radiometers   (Shi et al., 2023). Building on this study, future research could explore the joint direct assimilation of satellite-based and ground-based microwave radiometers. A more comprehensive evaluation of upper-air impacts could also be performed using additional independent observations, including aircraft reports and radio occultation data. </p>
</sec>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>

<app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <label>Appendix A</label><title>Observed versus simulated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></title>

      <fig id="FA1"><label>Figure A1</label><caption><p id="d2e3437">Scatterplots of observed brightness temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) versus simulated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for HATPRO. Same as Fig. 3 but for additional channels.</p></caption>
        
        <graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026-f14.png"/>

      </fig>

<fig id="FA2"><label>Figure A2</label><caption><p id="d2e3473">Scatterplots of observed brightness temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) versus simulated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for MP3000A. Same as Fig. 3 but for additional channels.</p></caption>
        
        <graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026-f15.png"/>

      </fig>


</app>

<app id="App1.Ch1.S2">
  <label>Appendix B</label><title>PDF distributions of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></title>

      <fig id="FB1"><label>Figure B1</label><caption><p id="d2e3530">Probability density functions (PDFs) of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> distributions for HATPRO. Same as Fig. 6 but for additional channels.</p></caption>
        
        <graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026-f16.png"/>

      </fig>

<fig id="FB2"><label>Figure B2</label><caption><p id="d2e3556">Probability density functions (PDFs) of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> distributions for MP3000A. Same as Fig. 6 but for additional channels.</p></caption>
        
        <graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/731/2026/gmd-19-731-2026-f17.png"/>

      </fig>


</app>
  </app-group><notes notes-type="codeavailability"><title>Code availability</title>

      <p id="d2e3585">The RTTOV-gb v1.0, WRF v4.5, WRFDA v4.5, along with the code for developing a direct assimilation module for GMWR radiances and training a machine learning-based GMWR bias correction model, are available on Zenodo (<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16731169" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.16731169</ext-link>, Zheng et al., 2025a).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d2e3594">The GMWR data and precipitation analysis product are provided by the Chinese Meteorological Administration and can be obtained via request from <uri>https://www.cma.gov.cn/en/</uri> (last access: 21 January 2026). The AGRI CLM used are available at <uri>https://satellite.nsmc.org.cn/portalsite/default.aspx?currentculture=en-US</uri> (last access: 21 January 2026). The NCEP FNL data used are available at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5065/D65Q4T4Z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5065/D65Q4T4Z</ext-link> (DOC/NOAA/NWS/NCEP, 2015). The assimilated GTS data are available at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5065/Z83F-N512" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5065/Z83F-N512</ext-link> (DOC/NOAA/NWS/NCEP, 2008). The model outputs for the single-observation assimilation experiment and the three-month sample dataset for the “Machine learning based bias correction for GMWR” section is available on Zenodo (<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14586346" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.14586346</ext-link>, Zheng et al., 2025b).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d2e3615">WS conceived the idea and designed the research. QZ performed the research and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors discussed the results and contributed to writing and revisions.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d2e3621">The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d2e3627">Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. The authors bear the ultimate responsibility for providing appropriate place names. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d2e3633">The authors gratefully acknowledge  Domenico Cimini for his help in usage of RTTOV-gb. They also thank the Numerical Weather Prediction Satellite Application Facility (NWP SAF) for providing the source code of RTTOV-gb v1.0, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) for providing the source code of WRF v4.5 and WRFDA v4.5. Additionally, the authors appreciate the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) for providing the FNL data, the China Meteorological Administration (CMA) for supplying the GMWR data and precipitation analysis product, and the National Supercomputing Center in Chengdu for their computational support.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d2e3638">This study was jointly supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (grant no. 2023YFC3007504), State Key Laboratory of Severe Weather Meteorological Science and Technology (grant no. 2025QZA06), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 42475013 and U2442214), Xizang Science and Technology Major Program (grant no. XZ202402ZD0006-04), Sichuan Science and Technology Program (grant no. 2024YFFK0110), Southwest Sichuan (Ya'an) Rainstorm Laboratory (grant no. CXNBYSYSZD202401).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d2e3644">This paper was edited by Guoqing Ge and reviewed by Alistair Bell and four anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Auligné, T., McNally, A. P., and Dee, D. P.: Adaptive bias correction for satellite data in a numerical weather prediction system, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 133, 631–642, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.56" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.56</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Barker, D., Huang, X.-Y., Liu, Z., Auligné, T., Zhang, X., Rugg, S., Ajjaji, R., Bourgeois, A., Bray, J., Chen, Y., Demirtas, M., Guo, Y.-R., Henderson, T., Huang, W., Lin, H.-C., Michalakes, J., Rizvi, S., and Zhang, X.: The Weather Research and Forecasting Model's Community Variational/Ensemble Data Assimilation System: WRFDA, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93, 831–843, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00167.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00167.1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Bauer, P., Thorpe, A., and Brunet, G.: The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction, Nature, 525, 47–55, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14956" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature14956</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Bauer, P., Geer, A. J., Lopez, P., and Salmond, D.: Direct 4D-Var assimilation of all-sky radiances. Part I: Implementation, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 136, 1868–1885, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.659" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.659</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Breiman, L.: Random Forests, Machine Learning, 45, 5–32, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1023/A:1010933404324</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Candy, B. and Migliorini, S.: The assimilation of microwave humidity sounder observations in all-sky conditions, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 147, 3049–3066, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4115" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.4115</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Cao, Y., Shi, B., Zhao, X., Yang, T., and Min, J.: Direct Assimilation of Ground-Based Microwave Radiometer Clear-Sky Radiance Data and Its Impact on the Forecast of Heavy Rainfall, Remote Sensing, 15, 4314, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15174314" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs15174314</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Carrier, M. J., Zou, X., and Lapenta, W. M.: Comparing the Vertical Structures of Weighting Functions and Adjoint Sensitivity of Radiance and Verifying Mesoscale Forecasts Using AIRS Radiance Observations, Monthly Weather Review, 136, 1327–1348, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007MWR2057.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2007MWR2057.1</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Caumont, O., Cimini, D., Löhnert, U., Alados-Arboledas, L., Bleisch, R., Buffa, F., Ferrario, M. E., Haefele, A., Huet, T., Madonna, F., and Pace, G.: Assimilation of humidity and temperature observations retrieved from ground-based microwave radiometers into a convective-scale NWP model, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 142, 2692–2704, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2860" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2860</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Chen, F. and Dudhia, J.: Coupling an Advanced Land Surface–Hydrology Model with the Penn State–NCAR MM5 Modeling System. Part I: Model Implementation and Sensitivity, Monthly Weather Review, 129, 569–585, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129&lt;0569:CAALSH&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129&lt;0569:CAALSH&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Cimini, D., Hocking, J., De Angelis, F., Cersosimo, A., Di Paola, F., Gallucci, D., Gentile, S., Geraldi, E., Larosa, S., Nilo, S., Romano, F., Ricciardelli, E., Ripepi, E., Viggiano, M., Luini, L., Riva, C., Marzano, F. S., Martinet, P., Song, Y. Y., Ahn, M. H., and Rosenkranz, P. W.: RTTOV-gb v1.0 – updates on sensors, absorption models, uncertainty, and availability, Geoscientific Model Development, 12, 1833–1845, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1833-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-12-1833-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Cui, X.,  Yao, Z.,  Zhao, Z.,  Zhai, Y.,  Sun, Z.,  Cheng, W., and Gu, C.: Use of Double Channel Differences for Reducing the Surface Emissivity Dependence of Microwave Atmospheric Temperature and Humidity Retrievals. Earth and Space Science, 7, e2019EA000854, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EA000854" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019EA000854</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>De Angelis, F., Cimini, D., Hocking, J., Martinet, P., and Kneifel, S.: RTTOV-gb – adapting the fast radiative transfer model RTTOV for the assimilation of ground-based microwave radiometer observations, Geoscientific Model Development,  9, 2721–2739, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2721-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-9-2721-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>De Angelis, F., Cimini, D., Löhnert, U., Caumont, O., Haefele, A., Pospichal, B., Martinet, P., Navas-Guzmán, F., Klein-Baltink, H., Dupont, J.-C., and Hocking, J.: Long-term observations minus background monitoring of ground-based brightness temperatures from a microwave radiometer network, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 10, 3947–3961, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-3947-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-10-3947-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Dee, D. P.: Bias and data assimilation, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 131, 3323–3343, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.05.137" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1256/qj.05.137</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Descombes, G., Auligné, T., Vandenberghe, F., Barker, D. M., and Barré, J.: Generalized background error covariance matrix model (GEN_BE v2.0), Geoscientific Model Development, 8, 669–696, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-669-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-8-669-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>DOC/NOAA/NWS/NCEP:  NCEP ADP Global Upper Air and Surface Weather Observations (PREPBUFR format), NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5065/Z83F-N512" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5065/Z83F-N512</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>DOC/NOAA/NWS/NCEP:  NCEP GDAS/FNL 0.25 Degree Global Tropospheric Analyses and Forecast Grids. NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5065/D65Q4T4Z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5065/D65Q4T4Z</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Eyre, J. R.: Observation bias correction schemes in data assimilation systems: a theoretical study of some of their properties, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 142, 2284–2291, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2819" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2819</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Eyre, J. R., English, S. J., and Forsythe, M.: Assimilation of satellite data in numerical weather prediction. Part I: The early years, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 146, 49–68, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3654" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.3654</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Eyre, J. R., Bell, W., Cotton, J., English, S. J., Forsythe, M., Healy, S. B., and Pavelin, E. G.: Assimilation of satellite data in numerical weather prediction. Part II: Recent years, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 148, 521–556, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4228" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.4228</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Geer, A. J., Bauer, P., and Lopez, P.: Lessons learnt from the operational 1D <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4D-Var assimilation of rain- and cloud-affected SSM/I observations at ECMWF, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 134, 1513–1525, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.304" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.304</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Geer, A. J., Baordo, F., Bormann, N., Chambon, P., English, S. J., Kazumori, M., Lawrence, H., Lean, P., Lonitz, K., and Lupu, C.: The growing impact of satellite observations sensitive to humidity, cloud and precipitation, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 143, 3189–3206, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3172" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.3172</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Geer, A. J., Bauer, P., and Lopez, P.: Direct 4D-Var assimilation of all-sky radiances. Part II: Assessment, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 136, 1886–1905, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.681" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.681</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Gustafsson, N., Janjić, T., Schraff, C., Leuenberger, D., Weissmann, M., Reich, H., Brousseau, P., Montmerle, T., Wattrelot, E., Bučánek, A., Mile, M., Hamdi, R., Lindskog, M., Barkmeijer, J., Dahlbom, M., Macpherson, B., Ballard, S., Inverarity, G., Carley, J., Alexander, C., Dowell, D., Liu, S., Ikuta, Y., and Fujita, T.: Survey of data assimilation methods for convective-scale numerical weather prediction at operational centres, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 144, 1218–1256, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3179" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.3179</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Ha, S.-Y. and Snyder, C.: Influence of Surface Observations in Mesoscale Data Assimilation Using an Ensemble Kalman Filter, Monthly Weather Review, 142, 1489–1508, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00108.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/MWR-D-13-00108.1</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Harris, B. A. and Kelly, G.: A satellite radiance-bias correction scheme for data assimilation, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 127, 1453–1468, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712757418" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.49712757418</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Hartung, D. C., Otkin, J. A., Petersen, R. A., Turner, D. D., and Feltz, W. F.: Assimilation of Surface-Based Boundary Layer Profiler Observations during a Cool-Season Weather Event Using an Observing System Simulation Experiment. Part II: Forecast Assessment, Monthly Weather Review, 139, 2327–2346, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2011MWR3623.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2011MWR3623.1</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Han, W. and Bormann, N.: Constrained adaptive bias correction for satellite radiance assimilation in the ECMWF 4D-Var system, ECMWF Technical Memoranda, 783, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.21957/rex0omex" ext-link-type="DOI">10.21957/rex0omex</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>He, W., Chen, H., and Li, J.: Influence of assimilating ground-based microwave radiometer data into the WRF model on precipitation, Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters, 13, 107–112, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/16742834.2019.1709299" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/16742834.2019.1709299</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Hong, S.-Y., Noh, Y., and Dudhia, J.: A New Vertical Diffusion Package with an Explicit Treatment of Entrainment Processes, Monthly Weather Review, 134, 2318–2341, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3199.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/MWR3199.1</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Iacono, M. J., Delamere, J. S., Mlawer, E. J., Shephard, M. W., Clough, S. A., and Collins, W. D.: Radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases: Calculations with the AER radiative transfer models, Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 113, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009944" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD009944</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Jiang, X.,  Shu, J.,  Wang, X.,  Huang, X., and  Wu, Q.: The Roles of Convection over the Western Maritime Continent and the Philippine Sea in Interannual Variability of Summer Rainfall over Southwest China, Journal of Hydrometeorology, 18, 2043–2056, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-16-0292.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JHM-D-16-0292.1</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Kim, M.-J., Jin, J., Akkraoui, A. E., McCarty, W., Todling, R., Gu, W., and Gelaro, R.: The Framework for Assimilating All-Sky GPM Microwave Imager Brightness Temperature Data in the NASA GEOS Data Assimilation System, Monthly Weather Review, 148, 2433–2455, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0100.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/MWR-D-19-0100.1</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Li, J., Jiang, X., Schiemann, R., Chen, H., Li, Y., and Heng, Z.: Prediction of the Diurnal Variation of Summertime Precipitation Over the Sichuan Basin by a Regional Model, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 128, e2021JD036247, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD036247" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2021JD036247</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Liu, J. J.,  Xu, L.,  Cheng, W.,  Wang, B.,  Gong, X. Y.,  Deng, Z. R.,  Li, Y. Y., and Di, D.: Bias Characteristics and Bias Correction of GIIRS Sounder onboard FY-4A Satellite for Data Assimilation, Chinese Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 46, 275–292, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3878/j.issn.1006-9895.2111.21034" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3878/j.issn.1006-9895.2111.21034</ext-link>, 2022  (in Chinese).</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Lin, H.-C., Sun, J., Weckwerth, T. M., Joseph, E., and Kay, J.: Assimilation of New York State Mesonet Surface and Profiler Data for the 21 June 2021 Convective Event, Monthly Weather Review, 151, 485–507, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-22-0136.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/MWR-D-22-0136.1</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Ma, S., Zhang, W., Cao, X., Zhao, Y., and Liu, B.: Assimilation of All-Sky Radiance from the FY-3 MWHS-2 with the Yinhe 4D-Var System, Journal of Meteorological Research, 36, 750–766, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-022-1208-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s13351-022-1208-1</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Martinet, P., Cimini, D., De Angelis, F., Canut, G., Unger, V., Guillot, R., Tzanos, D., and Paci, A.: Combining ground-based microwave radiometer and the AROME convective scale model through 1DVAR retrievals in complex terrain: an Alpine valley case study, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 10, 3385–3402, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-3385-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-10-3385-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Min, M., Wu, C., Li, C., Liu, H., Xu, N., Wu, X., Chen, L., Wang, F., Sun, F., Qin, D., Wang, X., Li, B., Zheng, Z., Cao, G., and Dong, L.: Developing the science product algorithm testbed for Chinese next-generation geostationary meteorological satellites: Fengyun-4 series, Journal of Meteorological Research, 31, 708–719, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-017-6161-z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s13351-017-6161-z</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Moker, J. M., Castro, C. L., Arellano, A. F., Serra, Y. L., and Adams, D. K.: Convective-Permitting Hindcast Simulations during the North American Monsoon GPS Transect Experiment 2013: Establishing Baseline Model Performance without Data Assimilation, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 57, 1683–1710, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-17-0136.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAMC-D-17-0136.1</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Morrison, H., Thompson, G., and Tatarskii, V.: Impact of Cloud Microphysics on the Development of Trailing Stratiform Precipitation in a Simulated Squall Line: Comparison of One- and Two-Moment Schemes, Monthly Weather Review, 137, 991–1007, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008MWR2556.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2008MWR2556.1</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Nie, Y. and  Sun, J.: Regional Persistent Extreme Precipitation Events over Southwest China under Different Low-Latitude Intraseasonal Oscillations during the Rainy Season, Journal of Climate, 36, 2873–2894, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-22-0310.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-22-0310.1</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Otkin, J. A.: Clear and cloudy sky infrared brightness temperature assimilation using an ensemble Kalman filter, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 115, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013759" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JD013759</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Otkin, J. A., Hartung, D. C., Turner, D. D., Petersen, R. A., Feltz, W. F., and Janzon, E.: Assimilation of Surface-Based Boundary Layer Profiler Observations during a Cool-Season Weather Event Using an Observing System Simulation Experiment. Part I: Analysis Impact, Monthly Weather Review, 139, 2309–2326, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2011MWR3622.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2011MWR3622.1</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Parrish, D. F. and  Derber, J. C.: The National Meteorological Center's Spectral Statistical-Interpolation Analysis System. Mon. Wea. Rev., 120, 1747–1763, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1992)120&lt;1747:TNMCSS&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0493(1992)120&lt;1747:TNMCSS&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., and Duchesnay, É.: Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825–2830, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5555/1953048.2078195" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5555/1953048.2078195</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Qi, Y., Fan, S., Mao, J., Li, B., Guo, C., and Zhang, S.: Impact of Assimilating Ground-Based Microwave Radiometer Data on the Precipitation Bifurcation Forecast: A Case Study in Beijing, Atmosphere, 12, 551, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12050551" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/atmos12050551</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Qi, Y., Fan, S., Li, B., Mao, J., and Lin, D.: Assimilation of Ground-Based Microwave Radiometer on Heavy Rainfall Forecast in Beijing, Atmosphere, 13, 74, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13010074" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/atmos13010074</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Saunders, R., Hocking, J., Turner, E., Rayer, P., Rundle, D., Brunel, P., Vidot, J., Roquet, P., Matricardi, M., Geer, A., Bormann, N., and Lupu, C.: An update on the RTTOV fast radiative transfer model (currently at version 12), Geoscientific Model Development, 11, 2717–2737, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2717-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-11-2717-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Shen, F., Shu, A., Liu, Z., Li, H., Jiang, L., Zhang, T., and Xu, D.: Assimilating FY-4A AGRI Radiances with a Channel-Sensitive Cloud Detection Scheme for the Analysis and Forecasting of Multiple Typhoons, Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 41, 937–958, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-023-3072-z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00376-023-3072-z</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Shen, Y., Zhao, P., Pan, Y., and Yu, J.: A high spatiotemporal gauge-satellite merged precipitation analysis over China, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 119, 3063–3075, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020686" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JD020686</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Shi, Y., Luo, Z., Chen, X., Zhang, Q., Liu, Y., and Liu, C.: Effects of joint assimilation of FY-4A AGRI and ground-based microwave radiometer on heavy rainfall prediction,  Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1083517" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/fenvs.2023.1083517</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Shi, Y.-N., Yang, J., Han, W., Han, L., Mao, J., Kan, W., and Weng, F.: Development of a fast radiative transfer model for ground-based microwave radiometers (ARMS-gb v1.0): validation and comparison to RTTOV-gb, Geoscientific Model Development, 18, 1947–1964, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1947-2025" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-18-1947-2025</ext-link>, 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Shu, T.-T., Han, H.-M., Guo, L.-X., Lin, L.-K., Zhao, Z.-W., and Li, J.-M.: Profiling atmospheric temperature using temperature weighting functions, in: ISAPE2012, ISAPE2012, 1184–1187, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/ISAPE.2012.6408989" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/ISAPE.2012.6408989</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Skamarock, C., Klemp, B., Dudhia, J., Gill, O., Liu, Z., Berner, J., Wang, W., Powers, G., Duda, G., Barker, D., and Huang, X.: A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Model Version 4.3, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5065/1dfh-6p97" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5065/1dfh-6p97</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Su, J., Lü, H., Crow, W. T., Zhu, Y., and Cui, Y.: The Effect of Spatiotemporal Resolution Degradation on the Accuracy of IMERG Products over the Huai River Basin, Journal of Hydrometeorology, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-19-0158.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JHM-D-19-0158.1</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Sun, W. and Xu, Y.: Assimilation of FY-3D MWHS-2 Radiances with WRF Hybrid-3DVAR System for the Forecast of Heavy Rainfall Evolution Associated with Typhoon Ampil, Monthly Weather Review, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-20-0127.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/MWR-D-20-0127.1</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Vandenberghe, F. and Ware, R.:  4-dimensional variational assimilation of ground-based microwave observations during a winter fog event, International Symposium on Atmospheric Sensing with GPS, Tsukuba, Japan,   <uri>https://radiometrics.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Vandenberghe_ASGPS-02.pdf</uri> (last access: 21 January 2026), 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Vural, J., Merker, C., Löffler, M., Leuenberger, D., Schraff, C., Stiller, O., Schomburg, A., Knist, C., Haefele, A., and Hervo, M.: Improving the representation of the atmospheric boundary layer by direct assimilation of ground-based microwave radiometer observations, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 150, 1012–1028, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4634" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.4634</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Wang, D., Wang, X., Liu, L., Wang, D., and Zeng, Z.: Urban Signatures in the Spatial Clustering of Precipitation Extremes over Mainland China, Journal of Hydrometeorology, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-20-0063.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JHM-D-20-0063.1</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>Wei, J., Shi, Y., Ren, Y., Li, Q., Qiao, Z., Cao, J., Ayantobo, O. O., Yin, J., and Wang, G.: Application of Ground-Based Microwave Radiometer in Retrieving Meteorological Characteristics of Tibet Plateau, Remote Sensing, 13, 2527, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13132527" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs13132527</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Xia, Y., Chen, J., Du, J., Zhi, X., Wang, J., and Li, X.: A Unified Scheme of Stochastic Physics and Bias Correction in an Ensemble Model to Reduce Both Random and Systematic Errors, Weather and Forecasting, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-19-0032.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/WAF-D-19-0032.1</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>Xian, Z., Chen, K., and Zhu, J.: All-Sky Assimilation of the MWHS-2 Observations and Evaluation the Impacts on the Analyses and Forecasts of Binary Typhoons, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124, 6359–6378, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029658" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018JD029658</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>Xu, L., Cheng, W., Deng, Z., Liu, J., Wang, B., Lu, B., Wang, S., and Dong, L.: Assimilation of the FY-4A AGRI Clear-Sky Radiance Data in a Regional Numerical Model and Its Impact on the Forecast of the “21 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7” Henan Extremely Persistent Heavy Rainfall,  Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 40, 920–936, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-022-1380-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00376-022-1380-3</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>Yang, L. and Shami, A.: On hyperparameter optimization of machine learning algorithms: Theory and practice, Neurocomputing, 415, 295–316, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2020.07.061" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.neucom.2020.07.061</ext-link>, 2020. </mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>Yang, Z.-L., Zhao, L., He, Y., and Wang, B.: Perspectives for Tibetan Plateau data assimilation, National Science Review, 7, 495–499, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaa014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1093/nsr/nwaa014</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>Yin, R., Han, W., Gao, Z., and Di, D.: The evaluation of FY4A's Geostationary Interferometric Infrared Sounder (GIIRS) long-wave temperature sounding channels using the GRAPES global 4D-Var, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 146, 1459–1476, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3746" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.3746</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>Yin, R., Han, W., Gao, Z., and Li, J.: Impact of High Temporal Resolution FY-4A Geostationary Interferometric Infrared Sounder (GIIRS) Radiance Measurements on Typhoon Forecasts: Maria (2018) Case With GRAPES Global 4D-Var Assimilation System, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL093672, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093672" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2021GL093672</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, X., Xu, D., Li, X., and Shen, F.: Nonlinear Bias Correction of the FY-4A AGRI Infrared Radiance Data Based on the Random Forest, Remote Sensing, 15, 1809, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15071809" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs15071809</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, X.,  Xu, D.,  Shen, F., and  Min, J.: Impacts of Offline Nonlinear Bias Correction Schemes Using the Machine Learning Technology on the All-Sky Assimilation of Cloud-Affected Infrared Radiances. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 16, e2024MS004281, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2024MS004281" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2024MS004281</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>Zheng, Q., Sun, W., Li, J., Feng, Y., Heng, Z., and Jiang, X.: Impacts of Moisture Advection Scheme on Precipitation in the Steep Topography Region between the Tibetan Plateau and the Sichuan Basin, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 63, 781–801, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-23-0111.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAMC-D-23-0111.1</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>Zheng, Q., Sun, W., Liu, Z., Mao, J., He, J., Li, J., and Jiang, X.: Codes related to the manuscript “Direct assimilation of ground-based microwave radiometer observations with machine learning bias correction based on developments of RTTOV-gb v1.0 and WRFDA v4.5”, Zenodo [code], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16731169" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.16731169</ext-link>, 2025a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>Zheng, Q., Sun, W., Liu, Z., Mao, J., He, J., Li, J., and Jiang, X.: Data for manuscript “Direct assimilation of ground-based microwave radiometer observations with machine learning bias correction based on developments of RTTOV-gb v1.0 and WRFDA v4.5”, Zenodo [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14586346" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.14586346</ext-link>, 2025b.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Direct assimilation of ground-based microwave radiometer observations with machine learning bias correction based on developments of RTTOV-gb v1.0 and WRFDA v4.5</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
      
Auligné, T., McNally, A. P., and Dee, D. P.: Adaptive bias correction
for satellite data in a numerical weather prediction system, Quarterly
Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 133, 631–642,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.56" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.56</a>, 2007.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
      Barker, D., Huang, X.-Y., Liu, Z., Auligné, T., Zhang, X., Rugg, S.,
Ajjaji, R., Bourgeois, A., Bray, J., Chen, Y., Demirtas, M., Guo, Y.-R.,
Henderson, T., Huang, W., Lin, H.-C., Michalakes, J., Rizvi, S., and Zhang,
X.: The Weather Research and Forecasting Model's Community
Variational/Ensemble Data Assimilation System: WRFDA, Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society, 93, 831–843,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00167.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00167.1</a>, 2012.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
      Bauer, P., Thorpe, A., and Brunet, G.: The quiet revolution of numerical
weather prediction, Nature, 525, 47–55,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14956" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14956</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
      Bauer, P., Geer, A. J., Lopez, P., and Salmond, D.: Direct 4D-Var
assimilation of all-sky radiances. Part I: Implementation, Quarterly Journal
of the Royal Meteorological Society, 136, 1868–1885,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.659" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.659</a>, 2010.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
      Breiman, L.: Random Forests, Machine Learning, 45, 5–32,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324</a>, 2001.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
      Candy, B. and Migliorini, S.: The assimilation of microwave humidity sounder
observations in all-sky conditions, Quarterly Journal of the Royal
Meteorological Society, 147, 3049–3066, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4115" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4115</a>,
2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
      Cao, Y., Shi, B., Zhao, X., Yang, T., and Min, J.: Direct Assimilation of
Ground-Based Microwave Radiometer Clear-Sky Radiance Data and Its Impact on
the Forecast of Heavy Rainfall, Remote Sensing, 15, 4314,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15174314" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15174314</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
      Carrier, M. J., Zou, X., and Lapenta, W. M.: Comparing the Vertical
Structures of Weighting Functions and Adjoint Sensitivity of Radiance and
Verifying Mesoscale Forecasts Using AIRS Radiance Observations, Monthly
Weather Review, 136, 1327–1348, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007MWR2057.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2007MWR2057.1</a>,
2008.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
      Caumont, O., Cimini, D., Löhnert, U., Alados-Arboledas, L., Bleisch, R.,
Buffa, F., Ferrario, M. E., Haefele, A., Huet, T., Madonna, F., and Pace,
G.: Assimilation of humidity and temperature observations retrieved from
ground-based microwave radiometers into a convective-scale NWP model,
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 142, 2692–2704,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2860" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2860</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
      Chen, F. and Dudhia, J.: Coupling an Advanced Land Surface–Hydrology Model
with the Penn State–NCAR MM5 Modeling System. Part I: Model Implementation
and Sensitivity, Monthly Weather Review, 129, 569–585,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129&lt;0569:CAALSH&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129&lt;0569:CAALSH&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2001.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
      Cimini, D., Hocking, J., De Angelis, F., Cersosimo, A., Di Paola, F., Gallucci, D., Gentile, S., Geraldi, E., Larosa, S., Nilo, S., Romano, F., Ricciardelli, E., Ripepi, E., Viggiano, M., Luini, L., Riva, C., Marzano, F. S., Martinet, P., Song, Y. Y., Ahn, M. H., and Rosenkranz, P. W.: RTTOV-gb v1.0 – updates on sensors, absorption models, uncertainty, and availability, Geoscientific Model Development, 12, 1833–1845, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1833-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1833-2019</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
      Cui, X.,  Yao, Z.,  Zhao, Z.,  Zhai, Y.,  Sun, Z.,  Cheng, W., and Gu, C.: Use of
Double Channel Differences for Reducing the Surface Emissivity Dependence of
Microwave Atmospheric Temperature and Humidity Retrievals. Earth and Space
Science, 7, e2019EA000854, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EA000854" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EA000854</a>,
2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
       De Angelis, F., Cimini, D., Hocking, J., Martinet, P., and Kneifel, S.: RTTOV-gb – adapting the fast radiative transfer model RTTOV for the assimilation of ground-based microwave radiometer observations, Geoscientific Model Development,  9, 2721–2739, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2721-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2721-2016</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
      De Angelis, F., Cimini, D., Löhnert, U., Caumont, O., Haefele, A., Pospichal, B., Martinet, P., Navas-Guzmán, F., Klein-Baltink, H., Dupont, J.-C., and Hocking, J.: Long-term observations minus background monitoring of ground-based brightness temperatures from a microwave radiometer network, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 10, 3947–3961, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-3947-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-3947-2017</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
      Dee, D. P.: Bias and data assimilation, Quarterly Journal of the Royal
Meteorological Society, 131, 3323–3343, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.05.137" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.05.137</a>,
2005.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
      Descombes, G., Auligné, T., Vandenberghe, F., Barker, D. M., and Barré, J.: Generalized background error covariance matrix model (GEN_BE v2.0), Geoscientific Model Development, 8, 669–696, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-669-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-669-2015</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
      DOC/NOAA/NWS/NCEP:  NCEP ADP Global Upper Air and Surface Weather Observations (PREPBUFR format), NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5065/Z83F-N512" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5065/Z83F-N512</a>, 2008.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
      DOC/NOAA/NWS/NCEP:  NCEP GDAS/FNL 0.25 Degree Global Tropospheric Analyses and Forecast Grids. NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5065/D65Q4T4Z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5065/D65Q4T4Z</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
      Eyre, J. R.: Observation bias correction schemes in data assimilation
systems: a theoretical study of some of their properties, Quarterly Journal
of the Royal Meteorological Society, 142, 2284–2291,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2819" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2819</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
      Eyre, J. R., English, S. J., and Forsythe, M.: Assimilation of satellite
data in numerical weather prediction. Part I: The early years, Quarterly
Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 146, 49–68,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3654" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3654</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
      Eyre, J. R., Bell, W., Cotton, J., English, S. J., Forsythe, M., Healy, S.
B., and Pavelin, E. G.: Assimilation of satellite data in numerical weather
prediction. Part II: Recent years, Quarterly Journal of the Royal
Meteorological Society, 148, 521–556, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4228" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4228</a>,
2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
      Geer, A. J., Bauer, P., and Lopez, P.: Lessons learnt from the operational
1D + 4D-Var assimilation of rain- and cloud-affected SSM/I observations at
ECMWF, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 134,
1513–1525, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.304" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.304</a>, 2008.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
      Geer, A. J., Baordo, F., Bormann, N., Chambon, P., English, S. J., Kazumori,
M., Lawrence, H., Lean, P., Lonitz, K., and Lupu, C.: The growing impact of
satellite observations sensitive to humidity, cloud and precipitation,
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 143, 3189–3206,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3172" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3172</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
      Geer, A. J., Bauer, P., and Lopez, P.: Direct 4D-Var assimilation of all-sky
radiances. Part II: Assessment, Quarterly Journal of the Royal
Meteorological Society, 136, 1886–1905, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.681" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.681</a>,
2010.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
      Gustafsson, N., Janjić, T., Schraff, C., Leuenberger, D., Weissmann, M.,
Reich, H., Brousseau, P., Montmerle, T., Wattrelot, E., Bučánek, A.,
Mile, M., Hamdi, R., Lindskog, M., Barkmeijer, J., Dahlbom, M., Macpherson,
B., Ballard, S., Inverarity, G., Carley, J., Alexander, C., Dowell, D., Liu,
S., Ikuta, Y., and Fujita, T.: Survey of data assimilation methods for
convective-scale numerical weather prediction at operational centres,
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 144, 1218–1256,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3179" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3179</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
      Ha, S.-Y. and Snyder, C.: Influence of Surface Observations in Mesoscale
Data Assimilation Using an Ensemble Kalman Filter, Monthly Weather Review,
142, 1489–1508, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00108.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00108.1</a>, 2014.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
      Harris, B. A. and Kelly, G.: A satellite radiance-bias correction scheme for
data assimilation, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society,
127, 1453–1468, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712757418" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712757418</a>, 2001.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
      Hartung, D. C., Otkin, J. A., Petersen, R. A., Turner, D. D., and Feltz, W.
F.: Assimilation of Surface-Based Boundary Layer Profiler Observations
during a Cool-Season Weather Event Using an Observing System Simulation
Experiment. Part II: Forecast Assessment, Monthly Weather Review, 139,
2327–2346, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2011MWR3623.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2011MWR3623.1</a>, 2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
      Han, W. and Bormann, N.: Constrained adaptive bias correction for satellite
radiance assimilation in the ECMWF 4D-Var system, ECMWF Technical Memoranda,
783, <a href="https://doi.org/10.21957/rex0omex" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.21957/rex0omex</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
      He, W., Chen, H., and Li, J.: Influence of assimilating ground-based
microwave radiometer data into the WRF model on precipitation, Atmospheric
and Oceanic Science Letters, 13, 107–112,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/16742834.2019.1709299" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/16742834.2019.1709299</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
      Hong, S.-Y., Noh, Y., and Dudhia, J.: A New Vertical Diffusion Package with
an Explicit Treatment of Entrainment Processes, Monthly Weather Review, 134,
2318–2341, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3199.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3199.1</a>, 2006.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
      Iacono, M. J., Delamere, J. S., Mlawer, E. J., Shephard, M. W., Clough, S.
A., and Collins, W. D.: Radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases:
Calculations with the AER radiative transfer models, Journal of Geophysical
Research Atmospheres, 113,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009944" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009944</a>, 2008.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
      Jiang, X.,  Shu, J.,  Wang, X.,  Huang, X., and  Wu, Q.: The Roles of Convection
over the Western Maritime Continent and the Philippine Sea in Interannual
Variability of Summer Rainfall over Southwest China, Journal of
Hydrometeorology, 18, 2043–2056, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-16-0292.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-16-0292.1</a>,
2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
      Kim, M.-J., Jin, J., Akkraoui, A. E., McCarty, W., Todling, R., Gu, W., and
Gelaro, R.: The Framework for Assimilating All-Sky GPM Microwave Imager
Brightness Temperature Data in the NASA GEOS Data Assimilation System,
Monthly Weather Review, 148, 2433–2455,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0100.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0100.1</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
      Li, J., Jiang, X., Schiemann, R., Chen, H., Li, Y., and Heng, Z.: Prediction
of the Diurnal Variation of Summertime Precipitation Over the Sichuan Basin
by a Regional Model, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 128,
e2021JD036247, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD036247" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD036247</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
      Liu, J. J.,  Xu, L.,  Cheng, W.,  Wang, B.,  Gong, X. Y.,  Deng, Z. R.,  Li, Y. Y., and
Di, D.: Bias Characteristics and Bias Correction of GIIRS Sounder
onboard FY-4A Satellite for Data Assimilation, Chinese Journal of
Atmospheric Sciences, 46, 275–292, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3878/j.issn.1006-9895.2111.21034" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3878/j.issn.1006-9895.2111.21034</a>, 2022  (in Chinese).

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
      Lin, H.-C., Sun, J., Weckwerth, T. M., Joseph, E., and Kay, J.: Assimilation
of New York State Mesonet Surface and Profiler Data for the 21 June 2021
Convective Event, Monthly Weather Review, 151, 485–507,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-22-0136.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-22-0136.1</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
      Ma, S., Zhang, W., Cao, X., Zhao, Y., and Liu, B.: Assimilation of All-Sky
Radiance from the FY-3 MWHS-2 with the Yinhe 4D-Var System, Journal of
Meteorological Research, 36, 750–766,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-022-1208-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-022-1208-1</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
      Martinet, P., Cimini, D., De Angelis, F., Canut, G., Unger, V., Guillot, R., Tzanos, D., and Paci, A.: Combining ground-based microwave radiometer and the AROME convective scale model through 1DVAR retrievals in complex terrain: an Alpine valley case study, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 10, 3385–3402, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-3385-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-3385-2017</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
      Min, M., Wu, C., Li, C., Liu, H., Xu, N., Wu, X., Chen, L., Wang, F., Sun,
F., Qin, D., Wang, X., Li, B., Zheng, Z., Cao, G., and Dong, L.: Developing
the science product algorithm testbed for Chinese next-generation
geostationary meteorological satellites: Fengyun-4 series, Journal of Meteorological Research,
31, 708–719, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-017-6161-z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-017-6161-z</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
      Moker, J. M., Castro, C. L., Arellano, A. F., Serra, Y. L., and Adams, D.
K.: Convective-Permitting Hindcast Simulations during the North American
Monsoon GPS Transect Experiment 2013: Establishing Baseline Model
Performance without Data Assimilation, Journal of Applied Meteorology and
Climatology, 57, 1683–1710, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-17-0136.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-17-0136.1</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
      Morrison, H., Thompson, G., and Tatarskii, V.: Impact of Cloud Microphysics
on the Development of Trailing Stratiform Precipitation in a Simulated
Squall Line: Comparison of One- and Two-Moment Schemes, Monthly Weather
Review, 137, 991–1007, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008MWR2556.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2008MWR2556.1</a>, 2009.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
      Nie, Y. and  Sun, J.: Regional Persistent Extreme Precipitation Events over
Southwest China under Different Low-Latitude Intraseasonal Oscillations
during the Rainy Season, Journal of Climate, 36, 2873–2894,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-22-0310.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-22-0310.1</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
      Otkin, J. A.: Clear and cloudy sky infrared brightness temperature
assimilation using an ensemble Kalman filter, Journal of Geophysical
Research: Atmospheres, 115, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013759" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013759</a>, 2010.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
      Otkin, J. A., Hartung, D. C., Turner, D. D., Petersen, R. A., Feltz, W. F.,
and Janzon, E.: Assimilation of Surface-Based Boundary Layer Profiler
Observations during a Cool-Season Weather Event Using an Observing System
Simulation Experiment. Part I: Analysis Impact, Monthly Weather Review, 139,
2309–2326, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2011MWR3622.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2011MWR3622.1</a>, 2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
      Parrish, D. F. and  Derber, J. C.: The National Meteorological Center's
Spectral Statistical-Interpolation Analysis System. Mon. Wea. Rev., 120,
1747–1763, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1992)120&lt;1747:TNMCSS&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1992)120&lt;1747:TNMCSS&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
      
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., and Duchesnay, É.: Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825–2830, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5555/1953048.2078195" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5555/1953048.2078195</a>, 2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
      Qi, Y., Fan, S., Mao, J., Li, B., Guo, C., and Zhang, S.: Impact of
Assimilating Ground-Based Microwave Radiometer Data on the Precipitation
Bifurcation Forecast: A Case Study in Beijing, Atmosphere, 12, 551,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12050551" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12050551</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
      Qi, Y., Fan, S., Li, B., Mao, J., and Lin, D.: Assimilation of Ground-Based
Microwave Radiometer on Heavy Rainfall Forecast in Beijing, Atmosphere, 13,
74, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13010074" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13010074</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
      Saunders, R., Hocking, J., Turner, E., Rayer, P., Rundle, D., Brunel, P., Vidot, J., Roquet, P., Matricardi, M., Geer, A., Bormann, N., and Lupu, C.: An update on the RTTOV fast radiative transfer model (currently at version 12), Geoscientific Model Development, 11, 2717–2737, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2717-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2717-2018</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
      Shen, F., Shu, A., Liu, Z., Li, H., Jiang, L., Zhang, T., and Xu, D.:
Assimilating FY-4A AGRI Radiances with a Channel-Sensitive Cloud Detection
Scheme for the Analysis and Forecasting of Multiple Typhoons, Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 41,
937–958, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-023-3072-z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-023-3072-z</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
      Shen, Y., Zhao, P., Pan, Y., and Yu, J.: A high spatiotemporal
gauge-satellite merged precipitation analysis over China, Journal of
Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 119, 3063–3075,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020686" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020686</a>, 2014.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
      Shi, Y., Luo, Z., Chen, X., Zhang, Q., Liu, Y., and Liu, C.: Effects of
joint assimilation of FY-4A AGRI and ground-based microwave radiometer on
heavy rainfall prediction,  Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1083517" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1083517</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
      Shi, Y.-N., Yang, J., Han, W., Han, L., Mao, J., Kan, W., and Weng, F.: Development of a fast radiative transfer model for ground-based microwave radiometers (ARMS-gb v1.0): validation and comparison to RTTOV-gb, Geoscientific Model Development, 18, 1947–1964, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1947-2025" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1947-2025</a>, 2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
      Shu, T.-T., Han, H.-M., Guo, L.-X., Lin, L.-K., Zhao, Z.-W., and Li, J.-M.:
Profiling atmospheric temperature using temperature weighting functions, in:
ISAPE2012, ISAPE2012, 1184–1187,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/ISAPE.2012.6408989" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/ISAPE.2012.6408989</a>, 2012.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
      Skamarock, C., Klemp, B., Dudhia, J., Gill, O., Liu, Z., Berner, J., Wang,
W., Powers, G., Duda, G., Barker, D., and Huang, X.: A Description of the
Advanced Research WRF Model Version 4.3, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5065/1dfh-6p97" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5065/1dfh-6p97</a>,
2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
      Su, J., Lü, H., Crow, W. T., Zhu, Y., and Cui, Y.: The Effect of
Spatiotemporal Resolution Degradation on the Accuracy of IMERG Products over
the Huai River Basin, Journal of Hydrometeorology, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-19-0158.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-19-0158.1</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
      Sun, W. and Xu, Y.: Assimilation of FY-3D MWHS-2 Radiances with WRF
Hybrid-3DVAR System for the Forecast of Heavy Rainfall Evolution Associated
with Typhoon Ampil,
Monthly Weather Review,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-20-0127.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-20-0127.1</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
      Vandenberghe, F. and Ware, R.:  4-dimensional variational assimilation of ground-based microwave observations during a winter fog event, International Symposium on Atmospheric Sensing with GPS, Tsukuba, Japan,   <a href="https://radiometrics.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Vandenberghe_ASGPS-02.pdf" target="_blank"/>
(last access: 21 January 2026), 2002.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
      Vural, J., Merker, C., Löffler, M., Leuenberger, D., Schraff, C.,
Stiller, O., Schomburg, A., Knist, C., Haefele, A., and Hervo, M.: Improving
the representation of the atmospheric boundary layer by direct assimilation
of ground-based microwave radiometer observations, Quarterly Journal of the
Royal Meteorological Society, 150, 1012–1028,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4634" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4634</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
      Wang, D., Wang, X., Liu, L., Wang, D., and Zeng, Z.: Urban Signatures in the
Spatial Clustering of Precipitation Extremes over Mainland China,
Journal of Hydrometeorology,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-20-0063.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-20-0063.1</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
      Wei, J., Shi, Y., Ren, Y., Li, Q., Qiao, Z., Cao, J., Ayantobo, O. O., Yin,
J., and Wang, G.: Application of Ground-Based Microwave Radiometer in
Retrieving Meteorological Characteristics of Tibet Plateau, Remote Sensing,
13, 2527, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13132527" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13132527</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
      Xia, Y., Chen, J., Du, J., Zhi, X., Wang, J., and Li, X.: A Unified Scheme
of Stochastic Physics and Bias Correction in an Ensemble Model to Reduce
Both Random and Systematic Errors,
Weather and Forecasting,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-19-0032.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-19-0032.1</a>,
2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
      Xian, Z., Chen, K., and Zhu, J.: All-Sky Assimilation of the MWHS-2
Observations and Evaluation the Impacts on the Analyses and Forecasts of
Binary Typhoons, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124,
6359–6378, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029658" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029658</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
      Xu, L., Cheng, W., Deng, Z., Liu, J., Wang, B., Lu, B., Wang, S., and Dong,
L.: Assimilation of the FY-4A AGRI Clear-Sky Radiance Data in a Regional
Numerical Model and Its Impact on the Forecast of the “21  ⋅  7”
Henan Extremely Persistent Heavy Rainfall,  Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 40, 920–936,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-022-1380-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-022-1380-3</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
      Yang, L. and Shami, A.: On hyperparameter optimization of machine learning
algorithms: Theory and practice, Neurocomputing, 415, 295–316,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2020.07.061" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2020.07.061</a>, 2020.


    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
      Yang, Z.-L., Zhao, L., He, Y., and Wang, B.: Perspectives for Tibetan
Plateau data assimilation, National Science Review, 7, 495–499,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaa014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaa014</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
      Yin, R., Han, W., Gao, Z., and Di, D.: The evaluation of FY4A's
Geostationary Interferometric Infrared Sounder (GIIRS) long-wave temperature
sounding channels using the GRAPES global 4D-Var, Quarterly Journal of the
Royal Meteorological Society, 146, 1459–1476,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3746" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3746</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
      Yin, R., Han, W., Gao, Z., and Li, J.: Impact of High Temporal Resolution
FY-4A Geostationary Interferometric Infrared Sounder (GIIRS) Radiance
Measurements on Typhoon Forecasts: Maria (2018) Case With GRAPES Global
4D-Var Assimilation System, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL093672,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093672" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093672</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
      Zhang, X., Xu, D., Li, X., and Shen, F.: Nonlinear Bias Correction of the
FY-4A AGRI Infrared Radiance Data Based on the Random Forest, Remote
Sensing, 15, 1809, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15071809" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15071809</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
      Zhang, X.,  Xu, D.,  Shen, F., and  Min, J.: Impacts of Offline Nonlinear Bias
Correction Schemes Using the Machine Learning Technology on the All-Sky
Assimilation of Cloud-Affected Infrared Radiances. Journal of Advances in
Modeling Earth Systems, 16, e2024MS004281,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2024MS004281" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2024MS004281</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>
      Zheng, Q., Sun, W., Li, J., Feng, Y., Heng, Z., and Jiang, X.: Impacts of
Moisture Advection Scheme on Precipitation in the Steep Topography Region
between the Tibetan Plateau and the Sichuan Basin, Journal of Applied
Meteorology and Climatology, 63, 781–801,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-23-0111.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-23-0111.1</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>
      Zheng, Q., Sun, W., Liu, Z., Mao, J., He, J., Li, J., and Jiang, X.: Codes
related to the manuscript “Direct assimilation of ground-based microwave
radiometer observations with machine learning bias correction based on
developments of RTTOV-gb v1.0 and WRFDA v4.5”, Zenodo [code],
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16731169" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16731169</a>, 2025a.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>
      Zheng, Q., Sun, W., Liu, Z., Mao, J., He, J., Li, J., and Jiang, X.: Data
for manuscript “Direct assimilation of ground-based microwave radiometer
observations with machine learning bias correction based on developments of
RTTOV-gb v1.0 and WRFDA v4.5”, Zenodo [data set],
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14586346" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14586346</a>, 2025b.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
