Understanding the Information Content in the Hierarchy of Model Development Decisions: Learning From Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Process‐based hydrological models seek to represent the dominant hydrological processes in a catchment. However, due to unavoidable incompleteness of knowledge, the construction of “ fidelius ” process‐based models depends largely on expert judgment. We present a systematic approach that treats models as hierarchical assemblages of hypotheses (conservation principles, system architecture, process parameterization equations, and parameter specification), which enables investigating how the hierarchy of model development decisions impacts model fidelity. Each model development step provides information that progressively changes our uncertainty (increases, decreases, or alters) regarding the input‐state‐output behavior of the system. Following the principle of maximum entropy, we introduce the concept of “ minimally restrictive process parameterization equations—MR‐PPEs ,” which enables us to enhance the flexibility with which system processes can be represented, and to thereby investigate the important role that the system architectural hypothesis (discretization of the system into subsystem elements) plays in determining model behavior. We illustrate and explore these concepts with synthetic and real‐data studies, using models constructed from simple generic buckets as building blocks, thereby paving the way for more‐detailed investigations using sophisticated process‐based hydrological models. We also discuss how proposed MR‐PPEs can bridge the gap between current process‐based modeling and machine learning. Finally, we suggest the need for model calibration to evolve from a search over “ parameter spaces ” to a search over “ function spaces .”
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".