An experimental approach to reduce the parametric dimensionality for rainfall–runoff models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sobol’ sensitivity analysis has been used successfully in the past to reduce the parametric dimensionality for hydrological models. However, the effects of its limitation, in that it assumes an independence of parameters, need to be investigated. This study proposes an experimental approach to assess the commonly used Sobol’ analysis for reducing the parameter dimensionality of hydrological models. In this approach, the number of model parameters is directly pitted against an efficiency criterion within a multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA), thus allowing both the identification of key model parameters and the optimal number of parameters to be used within the same analysis. The proposed approach was tested and compared with the Sobol’ method based on a conceptual lumped hydrological model (HSAMI) with 23 free parameters. The results show that both methods performed very similarly, and allowed 11 out of 23 HSAMI parameters to be reduced with little loss in model performance. Based on this comparison, Sobol’ appears to be an effective and robust method despite its limitations. On the other hand, the MOGA algorithm outperformed Sobol’ analysis for further reduction of the parametric space and found optimal solutions with as few as eight parameters with minimal performance loss in validation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".