MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Evaluating the Functional Realism of Deep Learning Rainfall-Runoff Models Using Catchment Hydrology Principles

2025· preprint· en· W4413141804 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Majid Bayati, Ali Ameli, Saman Razavi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsStreamflowProxy (statistics)Environmental scienceSurface runoffSnowmeltSnowComputer scienceExploitEvapotranspirationClimatologyDrainage basinMeteorologyMachine learningGeologyCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep learning (DL) models are expected to exploit correlations in data rather than causal processes. However, the nature and variability of spurious learning in DL rainfall–runoff models remain poorly understood. To explore these gaps, we propose a hydrologic-specific Explainable AI (XAI) framework to extract nonlinear and time-varying Impulse Response Functions (IRFs) used by Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) models to simulate streamflow. IRFs reveal how LSTMs emulate streamflow generation and celerity propagation processes in response to impulses of precipitation (P), temperature (T), and potential-evapotranspiration (PET), enabling the evaluation of LSTMs’ functional realism under short-term and long-term varying climate/weather conditions. Applying this framework to 672 catchments in USA and Canada, we found that while LSTMs achieve exceptionally high predictive accuracy, their extracted functionality often contradicts established hydrologic principles. Unexpectedly, the isolated effects of T or PET short-term variations on LSTM’s simulated streamflow and celerity rate are often positive in direction. For example, in over 70% of rain-dominated catchments, particularly along the Pacific Coast, increased T within 1–14 days prior to streamflow events is associated with higher streamflow and celerity rates. Similarly, in the southeastern USA and California, LSTMs often predict increased streamflow solely in response to PET rises. In snow-dominated catchments—particularly in the Rockies—LSTMs exploit the temporal alignment of PET with snowmelt-driven streamflow increases, assigning PET a stronger positive influence than T, even though temperature is the primary driver of snowmelt. These behaviors—likely driven by seasonality, data non-homogeneity, simplicity bias, and missing causal factors—undermine LSTMs’ scientific reliability for streamflow forecasting and climate impact assessments. Our XAI framework integrates DL with hydrologic context through differentiable modeling, offering a screening tool to evaluate functional realism in forecasting, climate change studies, and applications to ungauged basins.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→French-language works237,207→