Articles | Volume 18, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1709-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1709-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Methods for assessment of models
| 
12 Mar 2025
Methods for assessment of models |
| 12 Mar 2025
| 12 Mar 2025
Selecting a conceptual hydrological model using Bayes' factors computed with replica-exchange Hamiltonian Monte Carlo and thermodynamic integration
Damian N. Mingo
Institute of Computational Engineering, Department of Engineering, Faculty of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Luxembourg, 6 avenue de la Fonte, 4364 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
Remko Nijzink
Catchment and Eco-hydrology (CAT), Environmental Sensing and Modelling (ENVISION), Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST), Belvaux, Luxembourg
Christophe Ley
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Luxembourg, 6 avenue de la Fonte, 4364 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
Institute of Computational Engineering, Department of Engineering, Faculty of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Luxembourg, 6 avenue de la Fonte, 4364 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
Related authors
No articles found.
Remko C. Nijzink and Stanislaus J. Schymanski
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 6289–6309, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-6289-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-6289-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Most catchments plot close to the empirical Budyko curve, which allows for estimating the long-term mean annual evaporation and runoff. We found that a model that optimizes vegetation properties in response to changes in precipitation leads it to converge to a single curve. In contrast, models that assume no changes in vegetation start to deviate from a single curve. This implies that vegetation has a stabilizing role, bringing catchments back to equilibrium after changes in climate.
Remko C. Nijzink and Stanislaus J. Schymanski
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4575–4585, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4575-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4575-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Most catchments plot close to the empirical Budyko curve, which allows for the estimation of the long-term mean annual evaporation and runoff. The Budyko curve can be defined as a function of a wetness index or a dryness index. We found that differences can occur and that there is an uncertainty due to the different formulations.
Remko C. Nijzink, Jason Beringer, Lindsay B. Hutley, and Stanislaus J. Schymanski
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 883–900, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-883-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-883-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Vegetation Optimality Model (VOM) is a coupled water–vegetation model that predicts vegetation properties rather than determines them based on observations. A range of updates to previous applications of the VOM has been made for increased generality and improved comparability with conventional models. This showed that there is a large effect on the simulated water and carbon fluxes caused by the assumption of deep groundwater tables and updated soil profiles in the model.
Remko C. Nijzink, Jason Beringer, Lindsay B. Hutley, and Stanislaus J. Schymanski
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 525–550, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-525-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-525-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Most models that simulate water and carbon exchanges with the atmosphere rely on information about vegetation, but optimality models predict vegetation properties based on general principles. Here, we use the Vegetation Optimality Model (VOM) to predict vegetation behaviour at five savanna sites. The VOM overpredicted vegetation cover and carbon uptake during the wet seasons but also performed similarly to conventional models, showing that vegetation optimality is a promising approach.
Remko Nijzink, Christopher Hutton, Ilias Pechlivanidis, René Capell, Berit Arheimer, Jim Freer, Dawei Han, Thorsten Wagener, Kevin McGuire, Hubert Savenije, and Markus Hrachowitz
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 4775–4799, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-4775-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-4775-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The core component of many hydrological systems, the moisture storage capacity available to vegetation, is typically treated as a calibration parameter in hydrological models and often considered to remain constant in time. In this paper we test the potential of a recently introduced method to robustly estimate catchment-scale root-zone storage capacities exclusively based on climate data to reproduce the temporal evolution of root-zone storage under change (deforestation).
Remko C. Nijzink, Luis Samaniego, Juliane Mai, Rohini Kumar, Stephan Thober, Matthias Zink, David Schäfer, Hubert H. G. Savenije, and Markus Hrachowitz
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 1151–1176, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-1151-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-1151-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The heterogeneity of landscapes in river basins strongly affects the hydrological response. In this study, the distributed mesoscale Hydrologic Model (mHM) was equipped with additional processes identified by landscapes within one modelling cell. Seven study catchments across Europe were selected to test the value of this additional sub-grid heterogeneity. In addition, the models were constrained based on expert knowledge. Generally, the modifications improved the representation of low flows.
J. I. A. Gisen, H. H. G. Savenije, and R. C. Nijzink
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 2791–2803, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2791-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2791-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
We revised the predictive equations for two calibrated parameters in salt intrusion model (the Van der Burgh coefficient K and dispersion coefficient D) using an extended database of 89 salinity profiles including 8 newly conducted salinity measurements. The revised predictive equations consist of easily measured parameters such as the geometry of estuary, tide, friction and the Richardson number. These equations are useful in obtaining the first estimate of salinity distribution in an estuary.
S. Ceola, B. Arheimer, E. Baratti, G. Blöschl, R. Capell, A. Castellarin, J. Freer, D. Han, M. Hrachowitz, Y. Hundecha, C. Hutton, G. Lindström, A. Montanari, R. Nijzink, J. Parajka, E. Toth, A. Viglione, and T. Wagener
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 2101–2117, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2101-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2101-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
We present the outcomes of a collaborative hydrological experiment undertaken by five different international research groups in a virtual laboratory. Moving from the definition of accurate protocols, a rainfall-runoff model was independently applied by the research groups, which then engaged in a comparative discussion. The results revealed that sharing protocols and running the experiment within a controlled environment is fundamental for ensuring experiment repeatability and reproducibility.
Related subject area
Hydrology
The Water Table Model (WTM) (v2.0.1): coupled groundwater and dynamic lake modelling
Modelling rainfall with a Bartlett–Lewis process: pyBL (v1.0.0), a Python software package and an application with short records
Virtual Joint Field Campaign: a framework of synthetic landscapes to assess multiscale measurement methods of water storage
SERGHEI v2.0: introducing a performance-portable, high-performance, three-dimensional variably saturated subsurface flow solver (SERGHEI-RE)
The global water resources and use model WaterGAP v2.2e: description and evaluation of modifications and new features
Generalised drought index: a novel multi-scale daily approach for drought assessment
Development and performance of a high-resolution surface wave and storm surge forecast model: application to a large lake
A reach-integrated hydraulic modelling approach for large-scale and real-time inundation mapping
Deep dive into hydrologic simulations at global scale: harnessing the power of deep learning and physics-informed differentiable models (δHBV-globe1.0-hydroDL)
PyEt v1.3.1: a Python package for the estimation of potential evapotranspiration
Prediction of hysteretic matric potential dynamics using artificial intelligence: application of autoencoder neural networks
LM4-SHARC v1.0: Resolving the Catchment-scale Soil-Hillslope Aquifer-River Continuum for the GFDL Earth System Modeling Framework
Regionalization in global hydrological models and its impact on runoff simulations: a case study using WaterGAP3 (v 1.0.0)
Wastewater matters: Incorporating wastewater reclamation into a process-based hydrological model (CWatM v1.08)
STORM v.2: A simple, stochastic rainfall model for exploring the impacts of climate and climate change at and near the land surface in gauged watersheds
Fluvial flood inundation and socio-economic impact model based on open data
RoGeR v3.0.5 – a process-based hydrological toolbox model in Python
Coupling a large-scale glacier and hydrological model (OGGM v1.5.3 and CWatM V1.08) – towards an improved representation of mountain water resources in global assessments
An open-source refactoring of the Canadian Small Lakes Model for estimates of evaporation from medium-sized reservoirs
EvalHyd v0.1.2: a polyglot tool for the evaluation of deterministic and probabilistic streamflow predictions
Modelling water quantity and quality for integrated water cycle management with the Water Systems Integrated Modelling framework (WSIMOD) software
HGS-PDAF (version 1.0): a modular data assimilation framework for an integrated surface and subsurface hydrological model
Wflow_sbm v0.7.3, a spatially distributed hydrological model: from global data to local applications
Reservoir Assessment Tool version 3.0: a scalable and user-friendly software platform to mobilize the global water management community
HydroFATE (v1): a high-resolution contaminant fate model for the global river system
Validation of a new global irrigation scheme in the land surface model ORCHIDEE v2.2
GPEP v1.0: the Geospatial Probabilistic Estimation Package to support Earth science applications
GEMS v1.0: Generalizable Empirical Model of Snow Accumulation and Melt, based on daily snow mass changes in response to climate and topographic drivers
mesas.py v1.0: a flexible Python package for modeling solute transport and transit times using StorAge Selection functions
rSHUD v2.0: advancing the Simulator for Hydrologic Unstructured Domains and unstructured hydrological modeling in the R environment
GLOBGM v1.0: a parallel implementation of a 30 arcsec PCR-GLOBWB-MODFLOW global-scale groundwater model
Development of inter-grid-cell lateral unsaturated and saturated flow model in the E3SM Land Model (v2.0)
pyESDv1.0.1: an open-source Python framework for empirical-statistical downscaling of climate information
Representing the impact of Rhizophora mangroves on flow in a hydrodynamic model (COAWST_rh v1.0): the importance of three-dimensional root system structures
Dynamically weighted ensemble of geoscientific models via automated machine-learning-based classification
Enhancing the representation of water management in global hydrological models
NEOPRENE v1.0.1: a Python library for generating spatial rainfall based on the Neyman–Scott process
Uncertainty estimation for a new exponential-filter-based long-term root-zone soil moisture dataset from Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) surface observations
Validating the Nernst–Planck transport model under reaction-driven flow conditions using RetroPy v1.0
DynQual v1.0: a high-resolution global surface water quality model
Data space inversion for efficient uncertainty quantification using an integrated surface and sub-surface hydrologic model
Simulation of crop yield using the global hydrological model H08 (crp.v1)
How is a global sensitivity analysis of a catchment-scale, distributed pesticide transfer model performed? Application to the PESHMELBA model
iHydroSlide3D v1.0: an advanced hydrological–geotechnical model for hydrological simulation and three-dimensional landslide prediction
GEB v0.1: a large-scale agent-based socio-hydrological model – simulating 10 million individual farming households in a fully distributed hydrological model
Tracing and visualisation of contributing water sources in the LISFLOOD-FP model of flood inundation (within CAESAR-Lisflood version 1.9j-WS)
Continental-scale evaluation of a fully distributed coupled land surface and groundwater model, ParFlow-CLM (v3.6.0), over Europe
Evaluating a global soil moisture dataset from a multitask model (GSM3 v1.0) with potential applications for crop threats
SERGHEI (SERGHEI-SWE) v1.0: a performance-portable high-performance parallel-computing shallow-water solver for hydrology and environmental hydraulics
A simple, efficient, mass-conservative approach to solving Richards' equation (openRE, v1.0)
Kerry L. Callaghan, Andrew D. Wickert, Richard Barnes, and Jacqueline Austermann
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1463–1486, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1463-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1463-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present the Water Table Model (WTM), a new model for simulating groundwater and lake levels at continental scales over millennia. The WTM enables long-term evaluations of water-table changes. As a proof of concept, we simulate the North American water table for the present and the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), showing that North America held more groundwater and lake water during the LGM than it does today – enough to lower sea levels by 14.98 cm. The open-source code is available on GitHub.
Chi-Ling Wei, Pei-Chun Chen, Chien-Yu Tseng, Ting-Yu Dai, Yun-Ting Ho, Ching-Chun Chou, Christian Onof, and Li-Pen Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1357–1373, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1357-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1357-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
pyBL is an open-source package for generating realistic rainfall time series based on the Bartlett–Lewis (BL) model. It can preserve not only standard but also extreme rainfall statistics across various timescales. Notably, compared to traditional frequency analysis methods, the BL model requires only half the record length (or even shorter) to achieve similar consistency in estimating sub-hourly rainfall extremes. This makes it a valuable tool for modelling rainfall extremes with short records.
Till Francke, Cosimo Brogi, Alby Duarte Rocha, Michael Förster, Maik Heistermann, Markus Köhli, Daniel Rasche, Marvin Reich, Paul Schattan, Lena Scheiffele, and Martin Schrön
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 819–842, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-819-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-819-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Multiple methods for measuring soil moisture beyond the point scale exist. Their validation is generally hindered by not knowing the truth. We propose a virtual framework in which this truth is fully known and the sensor observations for cosmic ray neutron sensing, remote sensing, and hydrogravimetry are simulated. This allows for the rigorous testing of these virtual sensors to understand their effectiveness and limitations.
Zhi Li, Gregor Rickert, Na Zheng, Zhibo Zhang, Ilhan Özgen-Xian, and Daniel Caviedes-Voullième
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 547–562, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-547-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-547-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce SERGHEI-RE, a 3D subsurface flow simulator with performance-portable parallel computing capabilities. SERGHEI-RE performs effectively on various computational devices: from personal computers to advanced clusters. It allows users to solve flow equations with multiple numerical schemes, making it adaptable to various hydrological scenarios. Testing results show its accuracy and performance, confirming that SERGHEI-RE is a powerful tool for hydrological research.
Hannes Müller Schmied, Tim Trautmann, Sebastian Ackermann, Denise Cáceres, Martina Flörke, Helena Gerdener, Ellen Kynast, Thedini Asali Peiris, Leonie Schiebener, Maike Schumacher, and Petra Döll
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8817–8852, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8817-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8817-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Assessing water availability and water use at the global scale is challenging but essential for a range of purposes. We describe the newest version of the global hydrological model WaterGAP, which has been used for numerous water resource assessments since 1996. We show the effects of new model features, as well as model evaluations, against water abstraction statistics and observed streamflow and water storage anomalies. The publicly available model output for several variants is described.
João António Martins Careto, Rita Margarida Cardoso, Ana Russo, Daniela Catarina André Lima, and Pedro Miguel Matos Soares
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8115–8139, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8115-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8115-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study proposes a new daily drought index, the generalised drought index (GDI). The GDI not only identifies the same events as established indices but is also capable of improving their results. The index is empirically based and easy to compute, not requiring fitting the data to a probability distribution. The GDI can detect flash droughts and longer-term events, making it a versatile tool for drought monitoring.
Laura L. Swatridge, Ryan P. Mulligan, Leon Boegman, and Shiliang Shan
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7751–7766, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7751-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7751-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We develop an operational forecast system, Coastlines-LO, that can simulate water levels and surface waves in Lake Ontario driven by forecasts of wind speeds and pressure fields from an atmospheric model. The model has relatively low computational requirements, and results compare well with near-real-time observations, as well as with results from other existing forecast systems. Results show that with shorter forecast lengths, storm surge and wave predictions can improve in accuracy.
Robert Chlumsky, James R. Craig, and Bryan A. Tolson
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-184, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-184, 2024
Preprint under review for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
We aim to improve mapping of floods, and present a new method for hydraulic modelling that uses a combination of novel geospatial analysis and existing hydraulic modelling approaches. This method is wrapped into a modelling software called Blackbird. We compared Blackbird to two other existing options for flood mapping and found that the Blackbird model outperformed both. The Blackbird model has the potential to support real-time and large-scale flood mapping applications in the future.
Dapeng Feng, Hylke Beck, Jens de Bruijn, Reetik Kumar Sahu, Yusuke Satoh, Yoshihide Wada, Jiangtao Liu, Ming Pan, Kathryn Lawson, and Chaopeng Shen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7181–7198, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7181-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7181-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate hydrologic modeling is vital to characterizing water cycle responses to climate change. For the first time at this scale, we use differentiable physics-informed machine learning hydrologic models to simulate rainfall–runoff processes for 3753 basins around the world and compare them with purely data-driven and traditional modeling approaches. This sets a benchmark for hydrologic estimates around the world and builds foundations for improving global hydrologic simulations.
Matevž Vremec, Raoul A. Collenteur, and Steffen Birk
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7083–7103, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7083-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7083-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Geoscientists commonly use various potential evapotranpiration (PET) formulas for environmental studies, which can be prone to errors and sensitive to climate change. PyEt, a tested and open-source Python package, simplifies the application of 20 PET methods for both time series and gridded data, ensuring accurate and consistent PET estimations suitable for a wide range of environmental applications.
Nedal Aqel, Lea Reusser, Stephan Margreth, Andrea Carminati, and Peter Lehmann
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6949–6966, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6949-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6949-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The soil water potential (SWP) determines various soil water processes. Since remote sensing techniques cannot measure it directly, it is often deduced from volumetric water content (VWC) information. However, under dynamic field conditions, the relationship between SWP and VWC is highly ambiguous due to different factors that cannot be modeled with the classical approach. Applying a deep neural network with an autoencoder enables the prediction of the dynamic SWP.
Minki Hong, Nathaniel Chaney, Sergey Malyshev, Enrico Zorzetto, Anthony Preucil, and Elena Shevliakova
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2005, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2005, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study aims to understand the significance of groundwater in resolving water-energy budgets in the context of Earth system processes. LM4-SHARC describes the hillslope groundwater using its emergent properties derived from streamflow observations and yields noticeable improvements in soil moisture/temperature and groundwater discharge predictions. The implication of the groundwater-mediated hydrologic interactions between hillslope and stream needs further exploration in the ESM community.
Jenny Kupzig, Nina Kupzig, and Martina Flörke
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6819–6846, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6819-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6819-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Valid simulation results from global hydrological models (GHMs) are essential, e.g., to studying climate change impacts. Adapting GHMs to ungauged basins requires regionalization, enabling valid simulations. In this study, we highlight the impact of regionalization of GHMs on runoff simulations using an ensemble of regionalization methods for WaterGAP3. We have found that regionalization leads to temporally and spatially varying uncertainty, potentially reaching up to inter-model differences.
Dor Fridman, Mikhail Smilovic, Peter Burek, Sylvia Tramberend, and Taher Kahil
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-143, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-143, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
Global hydrological models are applied at high spatial resolutions to quantify water availability and evaluate water scarcity mitigation options. Yet they mostly oversee important local processes. This paper presents and demonstrates the inclusion of wastewater treatment and reclamation into a global hydrological model. As a result model performance is improved, and models are capable to utilize treated wastewater as an alternative water source.
Manuel F. Rios Gaona, Katerina Michaelides, and Michael Bliss Singer
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5387–5412, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5387-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5387-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
STORM v.2 (short for STOchastic Rainfall Model version 2.0) is an open-source and user-friendly modelling framework for simulating rainfall fields over a basin. It also allows simulating the impact of plausible climate change either on the total seasonal rainfall or the storm’s maximum intensity.
Lukas Riedel, Thomas Röösli, Thomas Vogt, and David N. Bresch
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5291–5308, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5291-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5291-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
River floods are among the most devastating natural hazards. We propose a flood model with a statistical approach based on openly available data. The model is integrated in a framework for estimating impacts of physical hazards. Although the model only agrees moderately with satellite-detected flood extents, we show that it can be used for forecasting the magnitude of flood events in terms of socio-economic impacts and for comparing these with past events.
Robin Schwemmle, Hannes Leistert, Andreas Steinbrich, and Markus Weiler
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5249–5262, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5249-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5249-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The new process-based hydrological toolbox model, RoGeR (https://roger.readthedocs.io/), can be used to estimate the components of the hydrological cycle and the related travel times of pollutants through parts of the hydrological cycle. These estimations may contribute to effective water resources management. This paper presents the toolbox concept and provides a simple example of providing estimations to water resources management.
Sarah Hanus, Lilian Schuster, Peter Burek, Fabien Maussion, Yoshihide Wada, and Daniel Viviroli
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5123–5144, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5123-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5123-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents a coupling of the large-scale glacier model OGGM and the hydrological model CWatM. Projected future increase in discharge is less strong while future decrease in discharge is stronger when glacier runoff is explicitly included in the large-scale hydrological model. This is because glacier runoff is projected to decrease in nearly all basins. We conclude that an improved glacier representation can prevent underestimating future discharge changes in large river basins.
M. Graham Clark and Sean K. Carey
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4911–4922, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4911-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4911-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper provides validation of the Canadian Small Lakes Model (CSLM) for estimating evaporation rates from reservoirs and a refactoring of the original FORTRAN code into MATLAB and Python, which are now stored in GitHub repositories. Here we provide direct observations of the surface energy exchange obtained with an eddy covariance system to validate the CSLM. There was good agreement between observations and estimations except under specific atmospheric conditions when evaporation is low.
Thibault Hallouin, François Bourgin, Charles Perrin, Maria-Helena Ramos, and Vazken Andréassian
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4561–4578, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4561-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4561-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The evaluation of the quality of hydrological model outputs against streamflow observations is widespread in the hydrological literature. In order to improve on the reproducibility of published studies, a new evaluation tool dedicated to hydrological applications is presented. It is open source and usable in a variety of programming languages to make it as accessible as possible to the community. Thus, authors and readers alike can use the same tool to produce and reproduce the results.
Barnaby Dobson, Leyang Liu, and Ana Mijic
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4495–4513, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4495-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4495-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Water management is challenging when models don't capture the entire water cycle. We propose that using integrated models facilitates management and improves understanding. We introduce a software tool designed for this task. We discuss its foundation, how it simulates water system components and their interactions, and its customisation. We provide a flexible way to represent water systems, and we hope it will inspire more research and practical applications for sustainable water management.
Qi Tang, Hugo Delottier, Wolfgang Kurtz, Lars Nerger, Oliver S. Schilling, and Philip Brunner
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3559–3578, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3559-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3559-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We have developed a new data assimilation framework by coupling an integrated hydrological model HydroGeoSphere with the data assimilation software PDAF. Compared to existing hydrological data assimilation systems, the advantage of our newly developed framework lies in its consideration of the physically based model; its large selection of different assimilation algorithms; and its modularity with respect to the combination of different types of observations, states and parameters.
Willem J. van Verseveld, Albrecht H. Weerts, Martijn Visser, Joost Buitink, Ruben O. Imhoff, Hélène Boisgontier, Laurène Bouaziz, Dirk Eilander, Mark Hegnauer, Corine ten Velden, and Bobby Russell
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3199–3234, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3199-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3199-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present the wflow_sbm distributed hydrological model, recently released by Deltares, as part of the Wflow.jl open-source modelling framework in the programming language Julia. Wflow_sbm has a fast runtime, making it suitable for large-scale modelling. Wflow_sbm models can be set a priori for any catchment with the Python tool HydroMT-Wflow based on globally available datasets, which results in satisfactory to good performance (without much tuning). We show this for a number of specific cases.
Sanchit Minocha, Faisal Hossain, Pritam Das, Sarath Suresh, Shahzaib Khan, George Darkwah, Hyongki Lee, Stefano Galelli, Konstantinos Andreadis, and Perry Oddo
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3137–3156, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3137-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3137-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The Reservoir Assessment Tool (RAT) merges satellite data with hydrological models, enabling robust estimation of reservoir parameters like inflow, outflow, surface area, and storage changes around the world. Version 3.0 of RAT lowers the barrier of entry for new users and achieves scalability and computational efficiency. RAT 3.0 also facilitates open-source development of functions for continuous improvement to mobilize and empower the global water management community.
Heloisa Ehalt Macedo, Bernhard Lehner, Jim Nicell, and Günther Grill
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2877–2899, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2877-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2877-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Treated and untreated wastewaters are sources of contaminants of emerging concern. HydroFATE, a new global model, estimates their concentrations in surface waters, identifying streams that are most at risk and guiding monitoring/mitigation efforts to safeguard aquatic ecosystems and human health. Model predictions were validated against field measurements of the antibiotic sulfamethoxazole, with predicted concentrations exceeding ecological thresholds in more than 400 000 km of rivers worldwide.
Pedro Felipe Arboleda-Obando, Agnès Ducharne, Zun Yin, and Philippe Ciais
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2141–2164, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2141-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2141-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We show a new irrigation scheme included in the ORCHIDEE land surface model. The new irrigation scheme restrains irrigation due to water shortage, includes water adduction, and represents environmental limits and facilities to access water, due to representing infrastructure in a simple way. Our results show that the new irrigation scheme helps simulate acceptable land surface conditions and fluxes in irrigated areas, even if there are difficulties due to shortcomings and limited information.
Guoqiang Tang, Andrew W. Wood, Andrew J. Newman, Martyn P. Clark, and Simon Michael Papalexiou
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1153–1173, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1153-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1153-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Ensemble geophysical datasets are crucial for understanding uncertainties and supporting probabilistic estimation/prediction. However, open-access tools for creating these datasets are limited. We have developed the Python-based Geospatial Probabilistic Estimation Package (GPEP). Through several experiments, we demonstrate GPEP's ability to estimate precipitation, temperature, and snow water equivalent. GPEP will be a useful tool to support uncertainty analysis in Earth science applications.
Atabek Umirbekov, Richard Essery, and Daniel Müller
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 911–929, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-911-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-911-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a parsimonious snow model which simulates snow mass without the need for extensive calibration. The model is based on a machine learning algorithm that has been trained on diverse set of daily observations of snow accumulation or melt, along with corresponding climate and topography data. We validated the model using in situ data from numerous new locations. The model provides a promising solution for accurate snow mass estimation across regions where in situ data are limited.
Ciaran J. Harman and Esther Xu Fei
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 477–495, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-477-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-477-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Over the last 10 years, scientists have developed StorAge Selection: a new way of modeling how material is transported through complex systems. Here, we present some new, easy-to-use, flexible, and very accurate code for implementing this method. We show that, in cases where we know exactly what the answer should be, our code gets the right answer. We also show that our code is closer than some other codes to the right answer in an important way: it conserves mass.
Lele Shu, Paul Ullrich, Xianhong Meng, Christopher Duffy, Hao Chen, and Zhaoguo Li
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 497–527, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-497-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-497-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Our team developed rSHUD v2.0, a toolkit that simplifies the use of the SHUD, a model simulating water movement in the environment. We demonstrated its effectiveness in two watersheds, one in the USA and one in China. The toolkit also facilitated the creation of the Global Hydrological Data Cloud, a platform for automatic data processing and model deployment, marking a significant advancement in hydrological research.
Jarno Verkaik, Edwin H. Sutanudjaja, Gualbert H. P. Oude Essink, Hai Xiang Lin, and Marc F. P. Bierkens
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 275–300, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-275-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-275-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents the parallel PCR-GLOBWB global-scale groundwater model at 30 arcsec resolution (~1 km at the Equator). Named GLOBGM v1.0, this model is a follow-up of the 5 arcmin (~10 km) model, aiming for a higher-resolution simulation of worldwide fresh groundwater reserves under climate change and excessive pumping. For a long transient simulation using a parallel prototype of MODFLOW 6, we show that our implementation is efficient for a relatively low number of processor cores.
Han Qiu, Gautam Bisht, Lingcheng Li, Dalei Hao, and Donghui Xu
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 143–167, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-143-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-143-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We developed and validated an inter-grid-cell lateral groundwater flow model for both saturated and unsaturated zone in the ELMv2.0 framework. The developed model was benchmarked against PFLOTRAN, a 3D subsurface flow and transport model and showed comparable performance with PFLOTRAN. The developed model was also applied to the Little Washita experimental watershed. The spatial pattern of simulated groundwater table depth agreed well with the global groundwater table benchmark dataset.
Daniel Boateng and Sebastian G. Mutz
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6479–6514, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6479-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6479-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present an open-source Python framework for performing empirical-statistical downscaling of climate information, such as precipitation. The user-friendly package comprises all the downscaling cycles including data preparation, model selection, training, and evaluation, designed in an efficient and flexible manner, allowing for quick and reproducible downscaling products. The framework would contribute to climate change impact assessments by generating accurate high-resolution climate data.
Masaya Yoshikai, Takashi Nakamura, Eugene C. Herrera, Rempei Suwa, Rene Rollon, Raghab Ray, Keita Furukawa, and Kazuo Nadaoka
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5847–5863, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5847-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5847-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Due to complex root system structures, representing the impacts of Rhizophora mangroves on flow in hydrodynamic models has been challenging. This study presents a new drag and turbulence model that leverages an empirical model for root systems. The model can be applied without rigorous measurements of root structures and showed high performance in flow simulations; this may provide a better understanding of hydrodynamics and related transport processes in Rhizophora mangrove forests.
Hao Chen, Tiejun Wang, Yonggen Zhang, Yun Bai, and Xi Chen
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5685–5701, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5685-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5685-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Effectively assembling multiple models for approaching a benchmark solution remains a long-standing issue for various geoscience domains. We here propose an automated machine learning-assisted ensemble framework (AutoML-Ens) that attempts to resolve this challenge. Results demonstrate the great potential of AutoML-Ens for improving estimations due to its two unique features, i.e., assigning dynamic weights for candidate models and taking full advantage of AutoML-assisted workflow.
Guta Wakbulcho Abeshu, Fuqiang Tian, Thomas Wild, Mengqi Zhao, Sean Turner, A. F. M. Kamal Chowdhury, Chris R. Vernon, Hongchang Hu, Yuan Zhuang, Mohamad Hejazi, and Hong-Yi Li
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5449–5472, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5449-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5449-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Most existing global hydrologic models do not explicitly represent hydropower reservoirs. We are introducing a new water management module to Xanthos that distinguishes between the operational characteristics of irrigation, hydropower, and flood control reservoirs. We show that this explicit representation of hydropower reservoirs can lead to a significantly more realistic simulation of reservoir storage and releases in over 44 % of the hydropower reservoirs included in this study.
Javier Diez-Sierra, Salvador Navas, and Manuel del Jesus
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5035–5048, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5035-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5035-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
NEOPRENE is an open-source, freely available library allowing scientists and practitioners to generate synthetic time series and maps of rainfall. These outputs will help to explore plausible events that were never observed in the past but may occur in the near future and to generate possible future events under climate change conditions. The paper shows how to use the library to downscale daily precipitation and how to use synthetic generation to improve our characterization of extreme events.
Adam Pasik, Alexander Gruber, Wolfgang Preimesberger, Domenico De Santis, and Wouter Dorigo
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4957–4976, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4957-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4957-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We apply the exponential filter (EF) method to satellite soil moisture retrievals to estimate the water content in the unobserved root zone globally from 2002–2020. Quality assessment against an independent dataset shows satisfactory results. Error characterization is carried out using the standard uncertainty propagation law and empirically estimated values of EF model structural uncertainty and parameter uncertainty. This is followed by analysis of temporal uncertainty variations.
Po-Wei Huang, Bernd Flemisch, Chao-Zhong Qin, Martin O. Saar, and Anozie Ebigbo
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4767–4791, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4767-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4767-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Water in natural environments consists of many ions. Ions are electrically charged and exert electric forces on each other. We discuss whether the electric forces are relevant in describing mixing and reaction processes in natural environments. By comparing our computer simulations to lab experiments in literature, we show that the electric interactions between ions can play an essential role in mixing and reaction processes, in which case they should not be neglected in numerical modeling.
Edward R. Jones, Marc F. P. Bierkens, Niko Wanders, Edwin H. Sutanudjaja, Ludovicus P. H. van Beek, and Michelle T. H. van Vliet
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4481–4500, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4481-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4481-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
DynQual is a new high-resolution global water quality model for simulating total dissolved solids, biological oxygen demand and fecal coliform as indicators of salinity, organic pollution and pathogen pollution, respectively. Output data from DynQual can supplement the observational record of water quality data, which is highly fragmented across space and time, and has the potential to inform assessments in a broad range of fields including ecological, human health and water scarcity studies.
Hugo Delottier, John Doherty, and Philip Brunner
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4213–4231, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4213-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4213-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Long run times are usually a barrier to the quantification and reduction of predictive uncertainty with complex hydrological models. Data space inversion (DSI) provides an alternative and highly model-run-efficient method for uncertainty quantification. This paper demonstrates DSI's ability to robustly quantify predictive uncertainty and extend the methodology to provide practical metrics that can guide data acquisition and analysis to achieve goals of decision-support modelling.
Zhipin Ai and Naota Hanasaki
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3275–3290, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3275-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3275-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Simultaneously simulating food production and the requirements and availability of water resources in a spatially explicit manner within a single framework remains challenging on a global scale. Here, we successfully enhanced the global hydrological model H08 that considers human water use and management to simulate the yields of four major staple crops: maize, wheat, rice, and soybean. Our improved model will be beneficial for advancing global food–water nexus studies in the future.
Emilie Rouzies, Claire Lauvernet, Bruno Sudret, and Arthur Vidard
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3137–3163, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3137-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3137-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Water and pesticide transfer models are complex and should be simplified to be used in decision support. Indeed, these models simulate many spatial processes in interaction, involving a large number of parameters. Sensitivity analysis allows us to select the most influential input parameters, but it has to be adapted to spatial modelling. This study will identify relevant methods that can be transposed to any hydrological and water quality model and improve the fate of pesticide knowledge.
Guoding Chen, Ke Zhang, Sheng Wang, Yi Xia, and Lijun Chao
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2915–2937, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2915-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2915-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we developed a novel modeling system called iHydroSlide3D v1.0 by coupling a modified a 3D landslide model with a distributed hydrology model. The model is able to apply flexibly different simulating resolutions for hydrological and slope stability submodules and gain a high computational efficiency through parallel computation. The test results in the Yuehe River basin, China, show a good predicative capability for cascading flood–landslide events.
Jens A. de Bruijn, Mikhail Smilovic, Peter Burek, Luca Guillaumot, Yoshihide Wada, and Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2437–2454, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2437-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2437-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present a computer simulation model of the hydrological system and human system, which can simulate the behaviour of individual farmers and their interactions with the water system at basin scale to assess how the systems have evolved and are projected to evolve in the future. For example, we can simulate the effect of subsidies provided on investment in adaptation measures and subsequent effects in the hydrological system, such as a lowering of the groundwater table or reservoir level.
Matthew D. Wilson and Thomas J. Coulthard
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2415–2436, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2415-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2415-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
During flooding, the sources of water that inundate a location can influence impacts such as pollution. However, methods to trace water sources in flood events are currently only available in complex, computationally expensive hydraulic models. We propose a simplified method which can be added to efficient, reduced-complexity model codes, enabling an improved understanding of flood dynamics and its impacts. We demonstrate its application for three sites at a range of spatial and temporal scales.
Bibi S. Naz, Wendy Sharples, Yueling Ma, Klaus Goergen, and Stefan Kollet
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1617–1639, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1617-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1617-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
It is challenging to apply a high-resolution integrated land surface and groundwater model over large spatial scales. In this paper, we demonstrate the application of such a model over a pan-European domain at 3 km resolution and perform an extensive evaluation of simulated water states and fluxes by comparing with in situ and satellite data. This study can serve as a benchmark and baseline for future studies of climate change impact projections and for hydrological forecasting.
Jiangtao Liu, David Hughes, Farshid Rahmani, Kathryn Lawson, and Chaopeng Shen
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1553–1567, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1553-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1553-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Under-monitored regions like Africa need high-quality soil moisture predictions to help with food production, but it is not clear if soil moisture processes are similar enough around the world for data-driven models to maintain accuracy. We present a deep-learning-based soil moisture model that learns from both in situ data and satellite data and performs better than satellite products at the global scale. These results help us apply our model globally while better understanding its limitations.
Daniel Caviedes-Voullième, Mario Morales-Hernández, Matthew R. Norman, and Ilhan Özgen-Xian
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 977–1008, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-977-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-977-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper introduces the SERGHEI framework and a solver for shallow-water problems. Such models, often used for surface flow and flood modelling, are computationally intense. In recent years the trends to increase computational power have changed, requiring models to adapt to new hardware and new software paradigms. SERGHEI addresses these challenges, allowing surface flow simulation to be enabled on the newest and upcoming consumer hardware and supercomputers very efficiently.
Andrew M. Ireson, Raymond J. Spiteri, Martyn P. Clark, and Simon A. Mathias
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 659–677, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-659-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-659-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Richards' equation (RE) is used to describe the movement and storage of water in a soil profile and is a component of many hydrological and earth-system models. Solving RE numerically is challenging due to the non-linearities in the properties. Here, we present a simple but effective and mass-conservative solution to solving RE, which is ideal for teaching/learning purposes but also useful in prototype models that are used to explore alternative process representations.
Cited articles
Allanach, B. C. and Lester, C. G.: Sampling Using a “Bank” of Clues, Comp. Phys. Commun., 179, 256–266, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2008.02.020, 2008. a
Ashton, G., Bernstein, N., Buchner, J., Chen, X., Csányi, G., Fowlie, A., Feroz, F., Griffiths, M., Handley, W., Habeck, M., Higson, E., Hobson, M., Lasenby, A., Parkinson, D., Pártay, L. B., Pitkin, M., Schneider, D., Speagle, J. S., South, L., Veitch, J., Wacker, P., Wales, D. J., and Yallup, D.: Nested Sampling for Physical Scientists, Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 2, 39, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00121-x, 2022. a
Bai, Z., Rao, C. R., and Wu, Y.: Model selection with data-oriented penalty, J. Stat. Plan. Infer., 77, 103–117, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3758(98)00168-2, 1999. a
Berger, J. O. and Pericchi, L. R.: The Intrinsic Bayes Factor for Model Selection and Prediction, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 91, 109–122, https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1996.10476668, 1996. a
Berger, J. O., Pericchi, L. R., Ghosh, J. K., Samanta, T., De Santis, F., Berger, J. O., and Pericchi, L. R.: Objective Bayesian Methods for Model Selection: Introduction and Comparison, Lecture Notes-Monograph Series, 38, 135–207, 2001. a
Bergström, S.: Development and application of a conceptual runoff model for Scandinavian catchments, Tech. Rep. 7, Hydrology, ISSN 0347-7827, 1976. a
Beskos, A., Pillai, N., Roberts, G., Sanz-Serna, J.-M., and Stuart, A.: Optimal Tuning of the Hybrid Monte Carlo Algorithm, Bernoulli, 19, 1501–1534, https://doi.org/10.3150/12-BEJ414, 2013. a
Betancourt, M.: A Conceptual Introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1701.02434, 2017. a
Birgé, L. and Massart, P.: Minimal penalties for Gaussian model selection, Probab. Theory Rel., 138, 33–73, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00440-006-0011-8, 2007. a
Brooks, S. P. and Gelman, A.: General Methods for Monitoring Convergence of Iterative Simulations, J. Comput. Graph. Stat., 7, 434–455, https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.1998.10474787, 1998. a
Brunetti, C. and Linde, N.: Impact of Petrophysical Uncertainty on Bayesian Hydrogeophysical Inversion and Model Selection, Adv. Water Resour., 111, 346–359, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.11.028, 2018. a, b, c
Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R.: Information and Likelihood Theory: A Basis for Model Selection and Inference, in: Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, edited by: Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R., pp. 49–97, Springer, New York, NY, ISBN 978-0-387-22456-5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-22456-5_2, 2002a. a
Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R. (Eds.): Information and Likelihood Theory: A Basis for Model Selection and Inference, Springer New York, New York, NY, 49–97, ISBN 978-0-387-22456-5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-22456-5_2, 2002b. a
Calderhead, B. and Girolami, M.: Estimating Bayes Factors via Thermodynamic Integration and Population MCMC, Comput. Stat. Data An., 53, 4028–4045, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2009.07.025, 2009. a, b, c, d
Cao, T., Zeng, X., Wu, J., Wang, D., Sun, Y., Zhu, X., Lin, J., and Long, Y.: Groundwater Contaminant Source Identification via Bayesian Model Selection and Uncertainty Quantification, Hydrogeol. J., 27, 2907–2918, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-019-02055-3, 2019. a
Cappé, O., Guillin, A., Marin, J. M., and Robert, C. P.: Population Monte Carlo, J. Comput. Graph. Stat., 13, 907–929, https://doi.org/10.1198/106186004X12803, 2004. a
Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., Hoffman, M. D., Lee, D., Goodrich, B., Betancourt, M., Brubaker, M., Guo, J., Li, P., and Riddell, A.: Stan : A Probabilistic Programming Language, J. Stat. Softw., 76, 1–32, https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v076.i01, 2017. a
Casella, G., Girón, F. J., Martínez, M. L., and Moreno, E.: Consistency of Bayesian Procedures for Variable Selection, Ann. Stat., 37, 1207–1228, https://doi.org/10.1214/08-AOS606, 2009. a
Chen, M.-H., Shao, Q.-M., and Ibrahim, J. G.: Estimating Ratios of Normalizing Constants, in: Monte Carlo Methods in Bayesian Computation, edited by: Chen, M.-H., Shao, Q.-M., and Ibrahim, J. G., Springer New York, 124–190, ISBN 978-1-4612-1276-8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1276-8_5, 2000. a
Chen, R. T. Q., Rubanova, Y., Bettencourt, J., and Duvenaud, D.: Neural Ordinary Differential Equations, in: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, edited by: Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Larochelle, H., Grauman, K., and Cesa-Bianchi, N., Curran Associates, Inc., 6572–6583, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3327757.3327764 (last access: 24 February 2025), 2018. a
Cheng, Q.-B., Chen, X., Xu, C.-Y., Reinhardt-Imjela, C., and Schulte, A.: Improvement and comparison of likelihood functions for model calibration and parameter uncertainty analysis within a Markov chain Monte Carlo scheme, J. Hydrol., 519, 2202–2214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.008, 2014. a
Chib, S.: Marginal Likelihood from the Gibbs Output, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 90, 1313–1321, https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476635, 1995. a
Chib, S. and Jeliazkov, I.: Marginal Likelihood From the Metropolis–Hastings Output, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 96, 270–281, https://doi.org/10.1198/016214501750332848, 2001. a
Chib, S. and Kuffner, T. A.: Bayes Factor Consistency, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1607.00292, 2016. a
Chopin, N. and Robert, C. P.: Properties of Nested Sampling, Biometrika, 97, 741–755, https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asq021, 2010. a
Cowles, M. K. and Carlin, B. P.: Markov Chain Monte Carlo Convergence Diagnostics: A Comparative Review, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 91, 883–904, https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1996.10476956, 1996. a
Dai, C. and Liu, J. S.: Monte Carlo Approximation of Bayes Factors via Mixing With Surrogate Distributions, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 117, 765–780, https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2020.1811100, 2022. a
Dillon, J. V., Langmore, I., Tran, D., Brevdo, E., Vasudevan, S., Moore, D., Patton, B., Alemi, A., Hoffman, M., and Saurous, R. A.: TensorFlow Distributions, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1711.10604, 2017. a, b
Duane, S., Kennedy, A., Pendleton, B. J., and Roweth, D.: Hybrid Monte Carlo, Phys. Lett. B, 195, 216–222, https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(87)91197-X, 1987. a, b
Earl, D. J. and Deem, M. W.: Parallel Tempering: Theory, Applications, and New Perspectives, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 7, 3910, https://doi.org/10.1039/b509983h, 2005. a
Elsheikh, A. H., Wheeler, M. F., and Hoteit, I.: Hybrid Nested Sampling Algorithm for Bayesian Model Selection Applied to Inverse Subsurface Flow Problems, J. Comput. Phys., 258, 319–337, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2013.10.001, 2014. a
Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., and Bridges, M.: MultiNest: An Efficient and Robust Bayesian Inference Tool for Cosmology and Particle Physics, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 398, 1601–1614, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x, 2009. a, b, c
Friel, N. and Pettitt, A. N.: Marginal Likelihood Estimation via Power Posteriors, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. B, 70, 589–607, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2007.00650.x, 2008. a, b
Gelfand, A. E. and Dey, D. K.: Bayesian Model Choice: Asymptotics and Exact Calculations, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. B, 56, 501–514, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1994.tb01996.x, 1994. a
Gelman, A.: Two Simple Examples for Understanding Posterior P-Values Whose Distributions Are Far from Uniform, Electron. J. Stat., 7, 2595–2602, https://doi.org/10.1214/13-EJS854, 2013. a
Gelman, A. and Meng, X.-L.: Simulating Normalizing Constants: From Importance Sampling to Bridge Sampling to Path Sampling, Stati. Sci., 13, 163–185, https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1028905934, 1998. a, b, c
Gelman, A. and Rubin, D. B.: Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences, Stat. Sci., 7, 457–472, https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011136, 1992. a
Gelman, A., Roberts, G. O., and Gilks, W. R.: Efficient Metropolis jumping rules, in: Bayesian Statistics 5: Proceedings of the Fifth Valencia International Meeting, edited by: Bernardo, J. M., Berger, J. O., Dawid, A. P., and Smith, A. F. M., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 599–608, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198523567.003.0038, 1996b. a
Gelman, A., Vehtari, A., Simpson, D., Margossian, C. C., Carpenter, B., Yao, Y., Kennedy, L., Gabry, J., Bürkner, P.-C., and Modrák, M.: Bayesian Workflow, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2011.01808, 2020. a
Geweke, J.: Evaluating the Accuracy of Sampling-Based Approaches to the Calculation of Posterior Moments, in: Bayesian Statistics 4: Proceedings of the Fourth Valencia International Meeting, Dedicated to the memory of Morris H. DeGroot, 1931–1989, edited by: Bernardo, J. M., Berger, J. O., Dawid, P., and Smith, A. F. M., Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-852266-9, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198522669.003.0010, 1992. a
Geyer, C. J.: Markov chain Monte Carlo maximum likelihood, Interface Foundation of North America, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/58440 (last access: 8 August 2023), 1991. a
Geyer, C. J.: Practical Markov Chain Monte Carlo, Stat. Sci., 7, 473–483, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2246094 (last access: 8 August 2023), 1992. a
Girolami, M. and Calderhead, B.: Riemann Manifold Langevin and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Methods, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser.-B, 73, 123–214, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2010.00765.x, 2011. a
Gneiting, T. and Raftery, A. E.: Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation, J. Am. Stat. Associ., 102, 359–378, https://doi.org/10.1198/016214506000001437, 2007. a
Xu, H., Song, S., Li, J., and Guo, T.: Hybrid model for daily runoff interval predictions based on Bayesian inference, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 68, 62–75, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2022.2145201, 2023. a
Hansmann, U. H.: Parallel Tempering Algorithm for Conformational Studies of Biological Molecules, Chem. Phys. Lett., 281, 140–150, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2614(97)01198-6, 1997. a
Henderson, R. W. and Goggans, P. M.: TI-Stan: Model Comparison Using Thermodynamic Integration and HMC, Entropy, 21, 1161, https://doi.org/10.3390/e21121161, 2019. a, b, c
Hjort, N. L., Dahl, F. A., and Steinbakk, G. H.: Post-Processing Posterior Predictive p Values, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 101, 1157–1174, https://doi.org/10.1198/016214505000001393, 2006. a, b, c
Hug, S., Schmidl, D., Li, W. B., Greiter, M. B., and Theis, F. J.: Bayesian model selection methods and their application to biological ODE systems, in: Uncertainty in Biology, Springer, 243–268, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21296-8_10, 2016. a
Hung, H. M. J., O'Neill, R. T., Bauer, P., and Kohne, K.: The Behavior of the P-Value When the Alternative Hypothesis Is True, Biometrics, 53, 11, https://doi.org/10.2307/2533093, 1997. a
Höge, M., Guthke, A., and Nowak, W.: The hydrologist’s guide to Bayesian model selection, averaging and combination, J. Hydrol., 572, 96–107, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.01.072, 2019. a
Höge, M., Scheidegger, A., Baity-Jesi, M., Albert, C., and Fenicia, F.: Improving hydrologic models for predictions and process understanding using neural ODEs, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5085–5102, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5085-2022, 2022. a
Iba, Y.: Population Monte Carlo algorithms, Transactions of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, 16, 279–286, 2000. a
Jansen, K. F., Teuling, A. J., Craig, J. R., Dal Molin, M., Knoben, W. J. M., Parajka, J., Vis, M., and Melsen, L. A.: Mimicry of a Conceptual Hydrological Model (HBV): What's in a Name?, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR029143, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR029143, 2021. a
Kass, R. E. and Raftery, A. E.: Bayes Factors, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 90, 773–795, https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572, 1995. a, b
Kavetski, D. and Clark, M. P.: Numerical Troubles in Conceptual Hydrology: Approximations, Absurdities and Impact on Hypothesis Testing, Hydrol. Process., 25, 661–670, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7899, 2011. a
Kelly, J., Bettencourt, J., Johnson, M. J., and Duvenaud, D. K.: Learning differential equations that are easy to solve, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, edited by: Larochelle, H., Ranzato, M., Hadsell, R., Balcan, M., and Lin, H., Curran Associates, Inc., 33, 4370–4380, https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2020/file/2e255d2d6bf9bb33030246d31f1a79ca-Paper.pdf (last access: 11 July 2023), 2020. a, b
Kendall, W. S., Liang, F., and Wang, J.-S.: Markov chain Monte Carlo: innovations and applications, vol. 7, World Scientific, https://doi.org/10.1142/5904, 2005. a
Knoben, W. J. M., Freer, J. E., and Woods, R. A.: Technical note: Inherent benchmark or not? Comparing Nash–Sutcliffe and Kling–Gupta efficiency scores, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 4323–4331, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019, 2019. a
Krapu, C. and Borsuk, M.: A Differentiable Hydrology Approach for Modeling With Time-Varying Parameters, Water Resour. Res., 58, e2021WR031377, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR031377, 2022. a
Laloy, E. and Vrugt, J. A.: High-Dimensional Posterior Exploration of Hydrologic Models Using Multiple-Try DREAM(ZS) and High-Performance Computing, Water Resour. Res., 48, W01526, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010608, 2012. a
Lartillot, N. and Philippe, H.: Computing Bayes Factors Using Thermodynamic Integration, Syst. Biol., 55, 195–207, https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150500433722, 2006. a
Lenk, P. J. and DeSarbo, W. S.: Bayesian Inference for Finite Mixtures of Generalized Linear Models with Random Effects, Psychometrika, 65, 93–119, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294188, 2000. a
Liu, P., Elshall, A. S., Ye, M., Beerli, P., Zeng, X., Lu, D., and Tao, Y.: Evaluating Marginal Likelihood with Thermodynamic Integration Method and Comparison with Several Other Numerical Methods, Water Resour. Res., 52, 734–758, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016718, 2016. a, b, c
Liu, S., She, D., Zhang, L., and Xia, J.: An improved Approximate Bayesian Computation approach for high-dimensional posterior exploration of hydrological models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-414, in review, 2023. a
Liu, Y., Fernández-Ortega, J., Mudarra, M., and Hartmann, A.: Pitfalls and a feasible solution for using KGE as an informal likelihood function in MCMC methods: DREAM(ZS) as an example, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5341–5355, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5341-2022, 2022. a
Llorente, F., Martino, L., Delgado, D., and López-Santiago, J.: Marginal Likelihood Computation for Model Selection and Hypothesis Testing: An Extensive Review, SIAM Rev., 65, 3–58, https://doi.org/10.1137/20M1310849, 2023. a
MacKay, D. J.: Information theory, inference and learning algorithms, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521642989, 2003. a
Margossian, C. C.: A review of automatic differentiation and its efficient implementation, WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 9, e1305, https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1305, 2019. a
Marshall, L., Nott, D., and Sharma, A.: Hydrological Model Selection: A Bayesian Alternative, Water Resour. Res., 41, W10422, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003719, 2005. a, b, c
Meng, X.-L.: Posterior Predictive p-Values, Ann. Stat., 22, 1142–1160, https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176325622, 1994. a
Meng, X.-L. and Wong, W. H.: Simulating ratios of normalizing constants via a simple identity: a theoretical exploration, Stat. Sin., 6, 831–860, https://www3.stat.sinica.edu.tw/statistica/j6n4/j6n43/j6n43.htm (last access: 11 November 2020), 1996. a
Miasojedow, B., Moulines, E., and Vihola, M.: An Adaptive Parallel Tempering Algorithm, J. Comput. Graph. Stat., 22, 649–664, https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.2013.778779, 2013. a
Miles, P.: Pymcmcstat: A Python Package for Bayesian Inference Using Delayed Rejection Adaptive Metropolis, J. Open Source Softw.e, 4, 1417, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01417, 2019. a
Mingas, G. and Bouganis, C.-S.: Population-Based MCMC on Multi-Core CPUs, GPUs and FPGAs, IEEE T. Comput., 65, 1283–1296, https://doi.org/10.1109/TC.2015.2439256, 2016. a
Mingo, N. D. and Hale, J. S.: Selecting a conceptual hydrological model using Bayes' factors, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13986081, 2024. a
Newton, M. A. and Raftery, A. E.: Approximate Bayesian Inference with the Weighted Likelihood Bootstrap, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser.-B, 56, 3–26, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1994.tb01956.x, 1994. a
Nott, D. J., Marshall, L., and Brown, J.: Generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) and approximate Bayesian computation: What's the connection?, Water Resour. Res., 48, W12602, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011128, 2012. a
Ogata, Y.: A Monte Carlo Method for High Dimensional Integration, Numerische Mathematik, 55, 137–157, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01406511, 1989. a, b
Ogata, Y.: A Monte Carlo Method for an Objective Bayesian Procedure, Ann. Inst. Stat. Math., 42, 403–433, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00049299, 1990. a
O'Hagan, A.: Properties of Intrinsic and Fractional Bayes Factors, Test, 6, 101–118, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02564428, 1997. a
Parajka, J., Merz, R., and Blöschl, G.: Uncertainty and Multiple Objective Calibration in Regional Water Balance Modelling: Case Study in 320 Austrian Catchments, Hydrol. Process., 21, 435–446, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6253, 2007. a
Rackauckas, C., Ma, Y., Martensen, J., Warner, C., Zubov, K., Supekar, R., Skinner, D., Ramadhan, A., and Edelman, A.: Universal Differential Equations for Scientific Machine Learning, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2001.04385, 2020. a
Roberts, G. O. and Rosenthal, J. S.: Examples of Adaptive MCMC, J. Comput. Graph. Stat., 18, 349–367, https://doi.org/10.1198/jcgs.2009.06134, 2009. a
Rubin, D. B.: Bayesianly Justifiable and Relevant Frequency Calculations for the Applied Statistician, Ann. Stat., 12, 1151–1172, https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176346785, 1984. a
Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T. V., and Fonnesbeck, C.: Probabilistic programming in Python using PyMC3, PeerJ Comput. Sci., 2, e55, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.55, 2016. a
Shafii, M., Tolson, B., and Matott, L. S.: Uncertainty-Based Multi-Criteria Calibration of Rainfall-Runoff Models: A Comparative Study, Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A., 28, 1493–1510, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-014-0855-x, 2014. a
Skilling, J.: Nested Sampling, in: AIP Conference Proceedings, AIP, 735, 395–405, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1835238, 2004. a
Skilling, J.: Nested Sampling for General Bayesian Computation, Bayesian Anal., 1, 833–859, https://doi.org/10.1214/06-BA127, 2006. a
Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., and Van Der Linde, A.: Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser.-B, 64, 583–639, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00353, 2002. a, b
Swendsen, R. H. and Wang, J.-S.: Replica Monte Carlo Simulation of Spin-Glasses, Phys. Rev. Lett., 57, 2607–2609, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.2607, 1986. a
Thijssen, B., Dijkstra, T. M. H., Heskes, T., and Wessels, L. F. A.: BCM: Toolkit for Bayesian Analysis of Computational Models Using Samplers, BMC Syst. Biol., 10, 100, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12918-016-0339-3, 2016. a
Torrie, G. and Valleau, J.: Nonphysical Sampling Distributions in Monte Carlo Free-Energy Estimation: Umbrella Sampling, J. Comput. Phys., 23, 187–199, https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(77)90121-8, 1977. a
Trotter, L., Knoben, W. J. M., Fowler, K. J. A., Saft, M., and Peel, M. C.: Modular Assessment of Rainfall–Runoff Models Toolbox (MARRMoT) v2.1: an object-oriented implementation of 47 established hydrological models for improved speed and readability, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6359–6369, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6359-2022, 2022. a
Varrette, S., Cartiaux, H., Peter, S., Kieffer, E., Valette, T., and Olloh, A.: Management of an Academic HPC & Research Computing Facility: The ULHPC Experience 2.0, in: Proc. of the 6th ACM High Performance Computing and Cluster Technologies Conf. (HPCCT 2022), Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Fuzhou, China, ISBN 978-1-4503-9664-6, https://doi.org/10.1145/3560442.3560445, 2022. a
Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., and Gabry, J.: Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC, Stat. Comput., 27, 1413–1432, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-016-9696-4, 2017. a
Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., Simpson, D., Carpenter, B., and Bürkner, P.-C.: Rank-Normalization, Folding, and Localization: An Improved
Volpi, E., Schoups, G., Firmani, G., and Vrugt, J. A.: Sworn Testimony of the Model Evidence: Gaussian Mixture Importance (GAME) Sampling, Water Resour. Res., 53, 6133–6158, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020167, 2017. a, b, c
Vousden, W. D., Farr, W. M., and Mandel, I.: Dynamic Temperature Selection for Parallel Tempering in Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulations, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 455, 1919–1937, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv2422, 2016. a
Vrugt, J. A.: Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulation Using the DREAM Software Package: Theory, Concepts, and MATLAB Implementation, Environ. Model. Softw., 75, 273–316, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.08.013, 2016. a
Vrugt, J. A., Ter Braak, C. J. F., Clark, M. P., Hyman, J. M., and Robinson, B. A.: Treatment of Input Uncertainty in Hydrologic Modeling: Doing Hydrology Backward with Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulation, Water Resour. Res., 44, W00B09, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006720, 2008. a
Wang, Z. and Xu, X.: Calibration of Posterior Predictive P-Values for Model Checking, J. Stat. Comput. Sim., 91, 1212–1242, https://doi.org/10.1080/00949655.2020.1844701, 2021. a
Xifara, T., Sherlock, C., Livingstone, S., Byrne, S., and Girolami, M.: Langevin diffusions and the Metropolis-adjusted Langevin algorithm, Stat. Probabil. Lett., 91, 14–19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spl.2014.04.002, 2014. a, b
Zhang, J., Vrugt, J. A., Shi, X., Lin, G., Wu, L., and Zeng, L.: Improving Simulation Efficiency of MCMC for Inverse Modeling of Hydrologic Systems With a Kalman-Inspired Proposal Distribution, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2019WR02547, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025474, 2020. a
Zhang, J. L.: Comparative Investigation of Three Bayesian p Values, Comput. Stat. Data Anal., 79, 277–291, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2014.05.012, 2014. a
Zheng, Y. and Han, F.: Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Uncertainty Analysis for Watershed Water Quality Modeling and Management, Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A., 30, 293–308, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1091-8, 2016. a
Short summary
Hydrologists are often faced with selecting amongst a set of competing models with different numbers of parameters and ability to fit available data. Bayes’ factor is a tool that can be used to compare models; however, it is very difficult to compute Bayes' factor numerically. In our paper, we explore and develop highly efficient algorithms for computing Bayes’ factor of hydrological systems, which will introduce this useful tool for selecting models into everyday hydrological practice.
Hydrologists are often faced with selecting amongst a set of competing models with different...
