Does hydrologically consistent data improve model performance? The importance of closing the water balance of input and evaluation data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the lack of accurate representation of hydrological processes and parameter measurements, physically-based hydrological models consist of many parameters requiring calibration to historical observations so that reliable hydrological inference can be obtained. With the increasing data availability from various sources (e.g., satellite remote sensing, climate model reanalysis), additional information on different water balance components (e.g., soil moisture, groundwater storage, etc.) are used to constrain and validate hydrological models, resulting in better model performance and parameter identifiability. However, given the emergence of multiple datasets for various water budget components, and their differences in temporal and spatial resolutions, the uncertainties in these datasets, when used together in driving and evaluating hydrological models, could introduce potential inconsistencies in water balance estimation and lead to a non-closure problem, which could result in potentially biased parameter and water balance component estimates in hydrological modelling.This study addresses this issue by examining the impact of inconsistent water balance component data on model performance and exploring the importance of hydrologically consistent data for robust hydrological inference. The assessment is done using a Canadian Hydrologic-Land Surface Models named MESH in the Saskatchewan River basin, Canada over the period of 2002 to 2016. Seven precipitation datasets, seven evapotranspiration products, one source of water storage data – GRACE from three different centers using spherical harmonic and mass concentration approaches – and observed discharge data from hydrometric stations are selected as the input and evaluation data. A reference water balance dataset is developed to optimally combine all available data sources for each water balance component and to obtain water balance closure though a constrained Kalman filter data assimilation technique. The MESH model is rerun with this reference dataset and results are assessed and compared to different combinations of input and evaluation data. Preliminary results reveal great variations of model performance in the water balance components when using different combinations of input and evaluation data and results of using the reference dataset is expected to have less biased water balance component estimates. This study aims to highlight the necessity of using a set of hydrologically consistent data before any model runs and model evaluation.
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 | 0.018 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".