MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414672414 · doi:10.5194/hess-29-4761-2025

Can causal discovery lead to a more robust prediction model for runoff signatures?

2025· article· en· W4414672414 on OpenAlexaff
Hossein Abbasizadeh, Petr Máca, Martin Hanel, Mads Troldborg, Amir AghaKouchak

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology and earth system sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUnited Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and Health
FundersČeská Zemědělská Univerzita v PrazeMinisterstvo Školství, Mládeže a Tělovýchovy
KeywordsSurface runoffBayesian networkRobustness (evolution)Bayesian probabilityRandom forestIdentification (biology)Lead (geology)Causal model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Runoff signatures characterize a catchment's response and provide insight into the hydrological processes. These signatures are governed by the co-evolution of catchment properties and climate processes, making them useful for understanding and explaining hydrological responses. However, catchment behaviors can vary significantly across different spatial scales, which complicates the identification of key drivers of hydrologic response. This study represents catchments as networks of variables linked by cause-and-effect relationships. We examine whether the direct causes of runoff signatures, representing independent causal mechanisms, can explain these catchment responses across different environments. To achieve this goal, we train the models using the causal parents of the runoff signatures and investigate whether it results in more robust, parsimonious, and physically interpretable predictions compared to models that do not use causal information. We compare predictive models that incorporate causal information derived from the relationships between the catchment, climate, and runoff characteristics. The Peter and Clark (PC) causal discovery algorithm is applied separately for 11 runoff signatures to derive causal relationships between catchment attributes, climate indices, and corresponding runoff signatures. Three prediction models – the Bayesian network (BN), generalized additive model (GAM), and random forest (RF) – are used for predictions. The results indicate that among models, BN, a linear model with a structure based on the causal network, exhibits the smallest decline in accuracy between training and test simulations compared to the other models. Across nearly all environments and runoff signatures, using causal parents enhances robustness and parsimony while maintaining the accuracy of GAMs. While RF achieves the highest overall performance, it also demonstrates the most significant drop in accuracy between the training and test phases. When the sample size for training is small, the accuracy of the causal RF model, which uses causal parents as predictors, is comparable to that of the non-causal RF model, which uses all selected variables as predictors, particularly for low-flow duration, high-flow duration, low flows, and high flows. This study demonstrates the potential of causal inference techniques for interpreting and enhancing the prediction of catchment responses by effectively representing the interconnected processes in hydrological systems in a cause-and-effect manner.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrology and earth system sciencesSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207