Single-objective vs. multi-objective autocalibration in modelling total suspended solids and phosphorus in a small agricultural watershed with SWAT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To obtain greater precision in modelling small agricultural watersheds, a shorter simulation time step is beneficial. A daily time step better represents the dynamics of pollutants in the river and provides more realistic simulation results. However, with a daily evaluation performance, good fits are rarely obtained. With the Shuffled Complex Evolution (SCE) method embedded in the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), two calibration approaches are available, single-objective or multi-objective optimization. The goal of the present study is to evaluate which approach can improve the daily performance with SWAT, in modelling flow (Q), total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP). The influence of weights assigned to the different variables included in the objective function has also been tested. The results showed that: (i) the model performance depends not only on the choice of calibration approach, but essentially on the influential parameters; (ii) the multi-objective calibration estimating at once all parameters related to all measured variables is the best approach to model Q, TSS and TP; (iii) changing weights does not improve model performance; and (iv) with a single-objective optimization, an excellent water quality modelling performance may hide a loss of performance of predicting flows and unbalanced internal model components.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".