## 4 Results
### Evaluation of Streamflow Simulations
#### 4.2.1 Daily Streamflow
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Streamflow Stations**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Precipitation Inputs**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Entire Simulation Period**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**High Flows**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Low Flows**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **BIAS (\%)** & **CC** & **NSE** & **LogNSE** & **BIAS (\%)** & **CC** & **BIAS (\%)** & **CC** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Hkami**} & Gauge & \(-2.9\) & \(0.939\) & \(0.874\) & \(0.857\) & \(-6.7\) & \(0.811\) & \(-19.3\) & \(0.583\) \\  & Original 3B42V7 & \(-16.6\) & \(0.908\) & \(0.769\) & \(0.901\) & \(-39.3\) & \(0.820\) & \(32.6\) & \(0.519\) \\  & Corrected 3B42V7 & \(-1.9\) & \(0.945\) & \(0.890\) & \(0.866\) & \(-11.3\) & \(0.886\) & \(-16.6\) & \(0.554\) \\  & Original IMERG & \(-28.7\) & \(0.887\) & \(0.674\) & \(0.881\) & \(-48.7\) & \(0.753\) & \(51.7\) & \(0.423\) \\  & Corrected IMERG & \(-1.2\) & \(0.916\) & \(0.836\) & \(0.864\) & \(-14.3\) & \(0.851\) & \(-16.4\) & \(0.561\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Homalin**} & Gauge & \(-0.7\) & \(0.946\) & \(0.879\) & \(0.890\) & \(-1.8\) & \(0.809\) & \(-21.3\) & \(0.682\) \\  & Original 3B42V7 & \(-16.9\) & \(0.916\) & \(0.776\) & \(0.896\) & \(-37.8\) & \(0.875\) & \(-3.9\) & \(0.554\) \\  & Corrected 3B42V7 & \(-5.3\) & \(0.948\) & \(0.893\) & \(0.872\) & \(-10.7\) & \(0.866\) & \(-22.9\) & \(0.667\) \\  & Original IMERG & \(-31.2\) & \(0.905\) & \(0.641\) & \(0.810\) & \(-48.9\) & \(0.800\) & \(-14.3\) & \(0.489\) \\  & Corrected IMERG & \(0.6\) & \(0.916\) & \(0.825\) & \(0.848\) & \(-11.5\) & \(0.810\) & \(-1.8\) & \(0.397\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Mawlaik**} & Gauge & \(-1.8\) & \(0.947\) & \(0.894\) & \(0.916\) & \(-5.7\) & \(0.718\) & \(26.3\) & \(0.755\) \\  & Original 3B42V7 & \(-10.9\) & \(0.947\) & \(0.849\) & \(0.882\) & \(-29.5\) & \(0.815\) & \(51.4\) & \(0.485\) \\  & Corrected 3B42V7 & \(-0.9\) & \(0.953\) & \(0.902\) & \(0.913\) & \(-9.3\) & \(0.831\) & \(24.4\) & \(0.657\) \\  & Original IMERG & \(-23.5\) & \(0.944\) & \(0.773\) & \(0.871\) & \(-39.1\) & \(0.777\) & \(35.9\) & \(0.416\) \\  & Corrected IMERG & \(2.2\) & \(0.889\) & \(0.783\) & \(0.798\) & \(-17.4\) & \(0.818\) & \(112.3\) & \(0.230\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Kalewa**} & Gauge & \(-5.2\) & \(0.911\) & \(0.827\) & \(0.917\) & \(-9.9\) & \(0.375\) & \(-3.1\) & \(0.553\) \\  & Original 3B42V7 & \(-13.1\) & \(0.926\) & \(0.809\) & \(0.908\) & \(-33.5\) & \(0.696\) & \(17.1\) & \(0.490\) \\  & Corrected 3B42V7 & \(-4.7\) & \(0.924\) & \(0.848\) & \(0.919\) & \(-13.5\) & \(0.565\) & \(-11.1\) & \(0.696\) \\  & Original IMERG & \(-25.9\) & \(0.920\) & \(0.717\) & \(0.891\) & \(-43.5\) & \(0.692\) & \(4.2\) & \(0.384\) \\  & Corrected IMERG & \(-1.5\) & \(0.861\) & \(0.741\) & \(0.796\) & \(-22.6\) & \(0.646\) & \(50.1\) & \(0.157\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Monywa**} & Gauge & \(-4.7\) & \(0.937\) & \(0.876\) & \(0.938\) & \(-11.5\) & \(0.534\) & \(8.8\) & \(0.571\) \\  & Original 3B42V7 & \(-14.4\) & \(0.929\) & \(0.793\) & \(0.902\) & \(-36.0\) & \(0.807\) & \(33.5\) & \(0.420\) \\  & Corrected 3B42V7 & \(-5.6\) & \(0.942\) & \(0.878\) & \(0.942\) & \(-16.6\) & \(0.717\) & \(0.7\) & \(0.651\) \\  & Original IMERG & \(-24.8\) & \(0.930\) & \(0.718\) & \(0.883\) & \(-44.1\) & \(0.824\) & \(19.8\) & \(0.326\) \\  & Corrected IMERG & \(-1.3\) & \(0.866\) & \(0.761\) & \(0.771\) & \(-25.8\) & \(0.764\) & \(88.5\) & \(0.108\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Statistical indices of the simulated daily streamflow processes at the five weather stations in the Chindwin River basin (1 April 2014–31 December 2015). were compared with the corresponding simulated flow with various precipitation inputs. As shown in Figure 9 and Table 4, the simulations with the gauge-based gridded precipitation input moderately underestimated the high flow at all the stations by 1.8%-11.5%.