Articles | Volume 30, issue 14
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-4667-2026
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-4667-2026
Research article
 | 
27 Jul 2026
Research article |  | 27 Jul 2026

Hybrid models generalize better to warmer climate conditions than process-based and purely data-driven models

Jan P. Bohl, Raul R. Wood, Corinna Frank, Paul C. Astagneau, Jonas Peters, and Manuela I. Brunner

Viewed

Total article views: 4,364 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
3,147 1,024 193 4,364 149 123
  • HTML: 3,147
  • PDF: 1,024
  • XML: 193
  • Total: 4,364
  • BibTeX: 149
  • EndNote: 123
Views and downloads (calculated since 07 Nov 2025)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 07 Nov 2025)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 4,364 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 4,334 with geography defined and 30 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 27 Jul 2026
Download
Short summary
To assess climate impacts on streamflow, we need models that can predict streamflow under future conditions. This study compares three model types: data-driven (LSTM - long short-term memory), conceptual (HBV - Hydrologiska Byråns Vattenbalansavdelning), and hybrid (LSTM-HBV). LSTMs perform best overall, but HBV and hybrid models generalize better to warmer climates. Hybrid models are a promising tool for climate impact assessments, combining LSTMs accuracy with better generalizability of traditional models. In snowy regions, all models struggle to generalize.
Share