Sensitivity Analysis of the SUMMA Model on the Global Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the recent advances, the identification of influential hydrologic processes and parameters of the process-based hydrologic model is still challenging. Part of the reason is the uncertain and interacting hydrologic process and the high dimensional parameter space. The motivation for this work is to effectively select an appropriate set of hydrologic processes and parameters for each basin on the globe, which is not necessarily the same everywhere. Here we evaluate the applications of the Structure for Unifying Multiple Modeling Alternatives (SUMMA) model to a large number of representative areas on the globe. Our objective is to identify the dominant hydrologic processes and sensitive model parameters for each representative area. First, sensitivity indices of the SUMMA parameters are computed using the VISCOUS global sensitivity analysis method. VISCOUS is the abbreviation of Variance-based Sensitivity Analysis using Copulas. Second, the sensitivity values are summarized per hydrologic process (e.g., snowmelt, surface runoff, infiltration, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, baseflow, and runoff) and per simulation statistic (e.g., mean, coefficient of variance, and autoregressive lag 1). The summarized sensitivity indices enable modelers to identify the most dominant hydrologic processes in each representative area. The results of this study will provide a foundation to estimate parameters in large-domain applications of process-based hydrologic models.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".