Articles | Volume 28, issue 11
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2505-2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2505-2024
Research article
 | 
13 Jun 2024
Research article |  | 13 Jun 2024

Metamorphic testing of machine learning and conceptual hydrologic models

Peter Reichert, Kai Ma, Marvin Höge, Fabrizio Fenicia, Marco Baity-Jesi, Dapeng Feng, and Chaopeng Shen

Related authors

A likelihood framework for deterministic hydrological models and the importance of non-stationary autocorrelation
Lorenz Ammann, Fabrizio Fenicia, and Peter Reichert
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2147–2172, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2147-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2147-2019, 2019
Short summary
Improving uncertainty estimation in urban hydrological modeling by statistically describing bias
D. Del Giudice, M. Honti, A. Scheidegger, C. Albert, P. Reichert, and J. Rieckermann
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 4209–4225, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4209-2013,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4209-2013, 2013

Related subject area

Subject: Catchment hydrology | Techniques and Approaches: Modelling approaches
A distributed hybrid physics–AI framework for learning corrections of internal hydrological fluxes and enhancing high-resolution regionalized flood modeling
Ngo Nghi Truyen Huynh, Pierre-André Garambois, Benjamin Renard, François Colleoni, Jérôme Monnier, and Hélène Roux
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 3589–3613, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-3589-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-3589-2025, 2025
Short summary
Adaptation of root zone storage capacity to climate change and its effects on future streamflow in Alpine catchments: towards non-stationary model parameters
Magali Ponds, Sarah Hanus, Harry Zekollari, Marie-Claire ten Veldhuis, Gerrit Schoups, Roland Kaitna, and Markus Hrachowitz
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 3545–3568, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-3545-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-3545-2025, 2025
Short summary
Finding process-behavioural parameterisations of a hydrological model using a multi-step process-based calibration and evaluation scheme
Moritz M. Heuer, Hadysa Mohajerani, and Markus C. Casper
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 3503–3525, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-3503-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-3503-2025, 2025
Short summary
Merits and limits of SWAT-GL: application in contrasting glaciated catchments
Timo Schaffhauser, Florentin Hofmeister, Gabriele Chiogna, Fabian Merk, Ye Tuo, Julian Machnitzke, Lucas Alcamo, Jingshui Huang, and Markus Disse
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 3227–3256, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-3227-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-3227-2025, 2025
Short summary
Hydrological regime index for non-perennial rivers
Pablo Fernando Dornes and Rocío Noelia Comas
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 2901–2923, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2901-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2901-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Addor, N., Newman, A. J., Mizukami, N., and Clark, M. P.: The CAMELS data set: catchment attributes and meteorology for large-sample studies, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 5293–5313, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5293-2017, 2017. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h
Alvarez-Garreton, C., Mendoza, P. A., Boisier, J. P., Addor, N., Galleguillos, M., Zambrano-Bigiarini, M., Lara, A., Puelma, C., Cortes, G., Garreaud, R., McPhee, J., and Ayala, A.: The CAMELS-CL dataset: catchment attributes and meteorology for large sample studies – Chile dataset, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 5817–5846, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5817-2018, 2018. a
Bai, P., Liu, X., and Xie, J.: Simulating runoff under changing climatic conditions: A comparison of the long short-term memory network with two conceptual hydrologic models, J. Hydrol., 592, 125779, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125779, 2021. a, b
Battjes, J. A. and Labeur, R. J.: Unsteady Flow in Open Channels, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, ISBN 978-1-107-15029-4, 2017. a, b
Bergström, S.: The HBV Model, Tech. rep., SMHI Reports Hydrology, Sweden, https://www.smhi.se/polopoly_fs/1.83589!/Menu/general/extGroup/attachmentColHold/mainCol1/file/RH_4.pdf (last access: 20 January 2022), 1992. a, b
Download
Short summary
We compared the predicted change in catchment outlet discharge to precipitation and temperature change for conceptual and machine learning hydrological models. We found that machine learning models, despite providing excellent fit and prediction capabilities, can be unreliable regarding the prediction of the effect of temperature change for low-elevation catchments. This indicates the need for caution when applying them for the prediction of the effect of climate change.
Share