the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Technical note: How many models do we need to simulate hydrologic processes across large geographical domains?
Abstract. Robust large-domain predictions of water availability and threats require models that work well across different basins in the model domain. It is currently common to express a model's accuracy through aggregated efficiency scores such as the Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency and Kling-Gupta Efficiency, and these scores often form the basis to select among competing models. However, recent work has shown that such scores are subject to considerable sampling uncertainty: the exact selection of time steps used to calculate the scores can have large impacts on the scores obtained. Here we explicitly account for this sampling uncertainty to determine the number of models that are needed to simulate hydrologic processes across large spatial domains. Using a selection of 36 conceptual models and 559 basins, our results show that model equifinality, the fact that very different models can produce simulations with very similar accuracy, makes it very difficult to unambiguously select one model over another. If models were selected based on their validation KGE scores alone, almost every model would be selected as the best model in at least some basins. When sampling uncertainty is accounted for, this number drops to 4 models being needed to cover 95% of investigated basins, and 10 models being needed to cover all basins. We obtain similar conclusions for an objective function focused on low flows. These results suggests that, under the conditions typical of many current modeling studies, there is limited evidence that using a wide variety of different models leads to appreciable differences in simulation accuracy compared to using a smaller number of carefully chosen models.
- Preprint
(4035 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 20 Nov 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2024-279', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Oct 2024
reply
This is my first review of the manuscript, "How many models do we need to simulate hydrologic processes across large geographical domains?" I appreciate the authors’ work, which is both relevant and holds significant technical implications for the hydrological community. Sampling uncertainty is a critical issue, well-known to some but often overlooked by many. This study effectively highlights its importance within the context of large-sample hydrology, which, thanks to the widespread availability of the CAMELS dataset, is rapidly gaining traction.
The introduction is technically strong, well-written, and cites relevant literature. However, I suggest that the authors define “model” within the paper as a specific model configuration rather than a “modeling framework.” Clarifying this distinction early on would prevent confusion, ensuring readers understand that the paper focuses on specific model structures rather than broader frameworks.
The methods section, however, falls below the expected standard for this type of paper. I found it challenging to follow the results due to the methods being insufficiently described. Some concepts became clear only later, in the limitations paragraphs of the discussion section. To enhance clarity, I recommend adding a schematic of the procedure and clearly defining key terms like “model equivalent” and “best model,” which only become fully understood in the results section. The methods currently feel hastily written; a clearer presentation would significantly enhance the paper’s accessibility and relevance (I have included specific comments in the annotated PDF). Additionally, the problem statement is vague in places (notably in the initial statement), and it would be beneficial to restate the specific answers to these questions in the conclusion, effectively closing the problem statement.
The results are sound, and the discussion is well-articulated and engaging.
Based on these points, I recommend major revisions prior to publication.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
334 | 63 | 8 | 405 | 3 | 4 |
- HTML: 334
- PDF: 63
- XML: 8
- Total: 405
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1