When ancient numerical demons meet physics-informed machine learning: adjoint-based gradients for implicit differentiable modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in differentiable modeling, a genre of physics-informed machine learning that trains neural networks (NNs) together with process-based equations, have shown promise in enhancing hydrological models' accuracy, interpretability, and knowledge-discovery potential. Current differentiable models are efficient for NN-based parameter regionalization, but the simple explicit numerical schemes paired with sequential calculations (operator splitting) can incur numerical errors whose impacts on models' representation power and learned parameters are not clear. Implicit schemes, however, cannot rely on automatic differentiation to calculate gradients due to potential issues of gradient vanishing and memory demand. Here we propose a “discretize-then-optimize” adjoint method to enable differentiable implicit numerical schemes for the first time for large-scale hydrological modeling. The adjoint model demonstrates comprehensively improved performance, with Kling–Gupta efficiency coefficients, peak-flow and low-flow metrics, and evapotranspiration that moderately surpass the already-competitive explicit model. Therefore, the previous sequential-calculation approach had a detrimental impact on the model's ability to represent hydrological dynamics. Furthermore, with a structural update that describes capillary rise, the adjoint model can better describe baseflow in arid regions and also produce low flows that outperform even pure machine learning methods such as long short-term memory networks. The adjoint model rectified some parameter distortions but did not alter spatial parameter distributions, demonstrating the robustness of regionalized parameterization. Despite higher computational expenses and modest improvements, the adjoint model's success removes the barrier for complex implicit schemes to enrich differentiable modeling in hydrology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".