Enhanced identification of a hydrologic model using streamflow and satellite water storage data: A multicriteria sensitivity analysis and optimization approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hydrologic model development and calibration have continued in most cases to focus only on accurately reproducing streamflows. However, complex models, for example, the so‐called physically based models, possess large degrees of freedom that, if not constrained properly, may lead to poor model performance when used for prediction. We argue that constraining a model to represent streamflow, which is an integrated resultant of many factors across the watershed, is necessary but by no means sufficient to develop a high‐fidelity model. To address this problem, we develop a framework to utilize the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment's (GRACE) total water storage anomaly data as a supplement to streamflows for model calibration, in a multiobjective setting. The VARS method (Variogram Analysis of Response Surfaces) for global sensitivity analysis is used to understand the model behaviour with respect to streamflow and GRACE data, and the BORG multiobjective optimization method is applied for model calibration. Two subbasins of the Saskatchewan River Basin in Western Canada are used as a case study. Results show that the developed framework is superior to the conventional approach of calibration only to streamflows, even when multiple streamflow‐based error functions are simultaneously minimized. It is shown that a range of (possibly false) system trajectories in state variable space can lead to similar (acceptable) model responses. This observation has significant implications for land‐surface and hydrologic model development and, if not addressed properly, may undermine the credibility of the model in prediction. The framework effectively constrains the model behaviour (by constraining posterior parameter space) and results in more credible representation of hydrology across the watershed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".