Articles | Volume 29, issue 19
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-5005-2025
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-5005-2025
Research article
 | 
08 Oct 2025
Research article |  | 08 Oct 2025

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

Maria Staudinger, Anna Herzog, Ralf Loritz, Tobias Houska, Sandra Pool, Diana Spieler, Paul D. Wagner, Juliane Mai, Jens Kiesel, Stephan Thober, Björn Guse, and Uwe Ehret

Related authors

How precipitation lapse rates shape runoff simulations and flood frequency estimates in mountainous regions
Eleni Kritidou, Martina Kauzlaric, Maria Staudinger, Guillaume Evin, Marc Vis, and Daniel Viviroli
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2338,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2338, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Leveraging reforecasts for flood estimation with long continuous simulation: a proof-of-concept study
Daniel Viviroli, Martin Jury, Maria Staudinger, Martina Kauzlaric, Heimo Truhetz, and Douglas Maraun
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1835–1857, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-26-1835-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-26-1835-2026, 2026
Short summary
The role of antecedent conditions in translating precipitation events into extreme floods at the catchment scale and in a large-basin context
Maria Staudinger, Martina Kauzlaric, Alexandre Mas, Guillaume Evin, Benoit Hingray, and Daniel Viviroli
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 247–265, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-247-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-247-2025, 2025
Short summary
Comprehensive space–time hydrometeorological simulations for estimating very rare floods at multiple sites in a large river basin
Daniel Viviroli, Anna E. Sikorska-Senoner, Guillaume Evin, Maria Staudinger, Martina Kauzlaric, Jérémy Chardon, Anne-Catherine Favre, Benoit Hingray, Gilles Nicolet, Damien Raynaud, Jan Seibert, Rolf Weingartner, and Calvin Whealton
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 2891–2920, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-2891-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-2891-2022, 2022
Short summary

Cited articles

Abhinav, G. and Rao, S. G.: Uncertainty quantification in watershed hydrology: Which method to use?, Journal of Hydrology, 616, 128749, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128749, 2023. a
Acuña Espinoza, E., Loritz, R., Álvarez Chaves, M., Bäuerle, N., and Ehret, U.: To bucket or not to bucket? Analyzing the performance and interpretability of hybrid hydrological models with dynamic parameterization, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2705–2719, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2705-2024, 2024. a, b, c
Arnold, J. G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R. S., and Williams, J. R.: Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development 1, JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 34, 73–89, 1998. a
Ayzel, G. and Heistermann, M.: The effect of calibration data length on the performance of a conceptual hydrological model versus LSTM and GRU: A case study for six basins from the CAMELS dataset, Computers & Geosciences, 149, 104708, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2021.104708, 2021. a
Azmi, E., Ehret, U., Weijs, S. V., Ruddell, B. L., and Perdigão, R. A. P.: Technical note: “Bit by bit”: a practical and general approach for evaluating model computational complexity vs. model performance, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1103–1115, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1103-2021, 2021. a
Download
Short summary
Three process-based and four data-driven hydrological models are compared using different training data. We found that process-based models perform better with small datasets but stop learning soon, while data-driven models learn longer. The study highlights the importance of memory in data and the impact of different data sampling methods on model performance. The direct comparison of these models is novel and provides a clear understanding of their performance under various data conditions.
Share