MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414947999 · doi:10.5194/hess-29-5005-2025

How well do process-based and data-driven hydrological models learn from limited discharge data?

2025· article· en· W4414947999 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Staudinger, Anna Herzog, Ralf Loritz, Tobias Houska, Sandra Pool, Diana Spieler, Paul D. Wagner, Juliane Mai, Jens Kiesel, Stephan Thober, Björn Guse, Uwe Ehret

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology and earth system sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversität PotsdamDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsEntropy (arrow of time)Multivariate statisticsRegressionModel selectionPredictive modellingTraining (meteorology)Regression analysisSelection (genetic algorithm)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is widely assumed that data-driven models achieve good results only with sufficiently large training data, whereas process-based models are usually expected to be superior in data-poor situations. To investigate this, we calibrated several process-based and data-driven hydrological models using training datasets of observed discharge that differed in terms of both the number of data points and the type of data selection, allowing us to make a systematic comparison of the learning behaviour of the different model types. Four data-driven models (conditional probability distributions, regression trees, artificial neural networks, and long short-term memory networks) and three process-based models (GR4J, HBV, and SWAT+) were included in the testing, applied in three meso-scale catchments representing different landscapes in Germany: the Iller in the Alpine region, the Saale in the low mountain ranges, and the Selke in the transition between the Harz and central German lowlands. We used information measures (joint entropy and conditional entropy) for system analysis and model performance evaluation because they offer several desirable properties: they extend seamlessly from uni- to multivariate data, they allow direct comparison of predictive uncertainty with and without model simulations, and their boundedness helps to put results into perspective. In addition to the main question of this study – to what extent does the performance of different models depend on the training dataset? – we investigated whether the selection of training data (random, according to information content, contiguous time periods, or independent time points) plays a role. We also examined whether the shape of the learning curve for different models can be used to predict the achievable model performance based on the information contained in the data and whether using more spatially distributed model inputs improves model performance compared to using spatially lumped inputs. Process-based models outperformed data-driven ones for small amounts of training data due to their predefined structure. However, as the amount of training data increases, the learning curve of process-based models quickly saturates, and data-driven models become more effective. In particular, the long short-term memory network outperforms all process-based models when trained with more than 2–5 years of data and continues to learn from additional training data without approaching saturation. Surprisingly, fully random sampling of training data points for the HBV model led to better learning results than consecutive random sampling or optimal sampling in terms of information content. Analysing multivariate catchment data allows predictions about how these data can be used to predict discharge. When no memory was considered, the conditional entropy was high. However, as soon as memory was introduced in the form of the previous day or week, the conditional entropy decreased, suggesting that memory is an important component of the data and that capturing it improves model performance. This was particularly evident in the catchments in the low mountain ranges and the Alpine region.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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