Articles | Volume 30, issue 15
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-5173-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An argument for parsimony in differentiable hydrologic models
Related authors
Cited articles
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.
Acuña Espinoza, E., Loritz, R., Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Gauch, M., Álvarez Chaves, M., and Ehret, U.: Analyzing the generalization capabilities of a hybrid hydrological model for extrapolation to extreme events, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1277–1294, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1277-2025, 2025.
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.
Baste, S., Klotz, D., Acuña Espinoza, E., Bardossy, A., and Loritz, R.: Unveiling the limits of deep learning models in hydrological extrapolation tasks, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 5871–5891, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-5871-2025, 2025.
Bennett, A. and Nijssen, B.: Deep learned process parameterizations provide better representations of turbulent heat fluxes in hydrologic models, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR029328, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR029328, 2021.