Towards reducing the high cost of parameter sensitivity analysis in hydrologic modeling: a regional parameter sensitivity analysis approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Land surface models have many parameters that have a spatially variable impact on model outputs. In applying these models, sensitivity analysis (SA) is sometimes performed as an initial step to select calibration parameters. As these models are applied to large domains, performing sensitivity analysis across the domain is computationally prohibitive. Here, using a Variable Infiltration Capacity model (VIC) deployment to a large domain as an example, we show that watershed classification based on climatic attributes and vegetation land cover helps to identify the spatial pattern of parameter sensitivity within the domain at a reduced cost. We evaluate the sensitivity of 44 VIC model parameters with regard to streamflow, evapotranspiration and snow water equivalent over 25 basins with a median size of 5078 km 2 . Basins are clustered based on their climatic and land cover attributes. Performance in transferring parameter sensitivity between basins of the same cluster is evaluated by the F1 score. Results show that two donor basins per cluster are sufficient to correctly identify sensitive parameters in a target basin, with F1 scores ranging between 0.66 (evapotranspiration) and 1 (snow water equivalent). While climatic attributes are sufficient to identify sensitive parameters for streamflow and evapotranspiration, including the vegetation class significantly improves skill in identifying sensitive parameters for the snow water equivalent. This work reveals that there is opportunity to leverage climate and land cover attributes to greatly increase the efficiency of parameter sensitivity analysis and facilitate more rapid deployment of land surface models over large spatial domains.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".