Tradeoffs between temporal and spatial pattern calibration and their impacts on robustness and transferability of hydrologic model parameters to ungauged basins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimization of spatially consistent parameter fields is believed to increase the robustness of parameter estimation and its transferability to ungauged basins. The current paper extends previous multi-objective and transferability studies by exploring the value of both multi-basin and spatial pattern calibration of distributed hydrologic models as compared to single-basin and single-objective model calibrations, with respect to tradeoffs, performance and transferability. The mesoscale Hydrological Model (mHM) is used across six large central European basins. Model simulations are evaluated against daily streamflow observations at the basin outlets and remotely sensed evapotranspiration patterns obtained with a two-source energy balance approach. Several model validation experiments are performed through combinations of single- (discharge) and multi-objective (discharge and spatial evapotranspiration patterns) calibrations with holdout experiments saving alternating basins for model evaluation. The study shows that there are very minimal tradeoffs between spatial and temporal performance objectives and that a joint calibration of multiple basins using multiple objective functions provides the most robust estimations of parameter fields that perform better when transferred to ungauged basins. The study indicates that particularly the multi-basin calibration approach is key for robust parametrizations, and that the addition of an objective function tailored for matching spatial patterns of ET fields alters the spatial parameter fields while significantly improving the spatial pattern performance without any tradeoffs with discharge performance. In light of model equifinality, the minimal tradeoff between spatial and temporal performance shows that adding spatial pattern evaluation to the traditional temporal evaluation of hydrological models can assist in identifying optimal parameter sets.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".