Are we unnecessarily constraining the agility of complex process-based models?

Pablo A. Mendoza, Martyn P. Clark, Michael Barlage, Balaji Rajagopalan, Luis Samaniego, Gab Abramowitz, Hoshin Vijai Gupta

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

63 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this commentary we suggest that hydrologists and land-surface modelers may be unnecessarily constraining the behavioral agility of very complex physics-based models. We argue that the relatively poor performance of such models can occur due to restrictions on their ability to refine their portrayal of physical processes, in part because of strong a priori constraints in: (i) the representation of spatial variability and hydrologic connectivity, (ii) the choice of model parameterizations, and (iii) the choice of model parameter values. We provide a specific example of problems associated with strong a priori constraints on parameters in a land surface model. Moving forward, we assert that improving hydrological models requires integrating the strengths of the "physics-based" modeling philosophy (which relies on prior knowledge of hydrologic processes) with the strengths of the "conceptual" modeling philosophy (which relies on data driven inference). Such integration will accelerate progress on methods to define and discriminate among competing modeling options, which should be ideally incorporated in agile modeling frameworks and tested through a diagnostic evaluation approach.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)716-728
Number of pages13
JournalWater Resources Research
Volume51
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2015

Fingerprint

modeling
land surface
physics
connectivity
parameterization
parameter
evaluation
method
physical process

Keywords

  • hydrology
  • model agility
  • process-based models
  • sensitivity analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Water Science and Technology

Cite this

Mendoza, P. A., Clark, M. P., Barlage, M., Rajagopalan, B., Samaniego, L., Abramowitz, G., & Gupta, H. V. (2015). Are we unnecessarily constraining the agility of complex process-based models? Water Resources Research, 51(1), 716-728. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015820

Are we unnecessarily constraining the agility of complex process-based models? / Mendoza, Pablo A.; Clark, Martyn P.; Barlage, Michael; Rajagopalan, Balaji; Samaniego, Luis; Abramowitz, Gab; Gupta, Hoshin Vijai.

In: Water Resources Research, Vol. 51, No. 1, 2015, p. 716-728.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Mendoza, PA, Clark, MP, Barlage, M, Rajagopalan, B, Samaniego, L, Abramowitz, G & Gupta, HV 2015, 'Are we unnecessarily constraining the agility of complex process-based models?', Water Resources Research, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 716-728. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015820
Mendoza PA, Clark MP, Barlage M, Rajagopalan B, Samaniego L, Abramowitz G et al. Are we unnecessarily constraining the agility of complex process-based models? Water Resources Research. 2015;51(1):716-728. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015820
Mendoza, Pablo A. ; Clark, Martyn P. ; Barlage, Michael ; Rajagopalan, Balaji ; Samaniego, Luis ; Abramowitz, Gab ; Gupta, Hoshin Vijai. / Are we unnecessarily constraining the agility of complex process-based models?. In: Water Resources Research. 2015 ; Vol. 51, No. 1. pp. 716-728.
@article{52907879d1aa44069105f7aba78f25c6,
title = "Are we unnecessarily constraining the agility of complex process-based models?",
abstract = "In this commentary we suggest that hydrologists and land-surface modelers may be unnecessarily constraining the behavioral agility of very complex physics-based models. We argue that the relatively poor performance of such models can occur due to restrictions on their ability to refine their portrayal of physical processes, in part because of strong a priori constraints in: (i) the representation of spatial variability and hydrologic connectivity, (ii) the choice of model parameterizations, and (iii) the choice of model parameter values. We provide a specific example of problems associated with strong a priori constraints on parameters in a land surface model. Moving forward, we assert that improving hydrological models requires integrating the strengths of the {"}physics-based{"} modeling philosophy (which relies on prior knowledge of hydrologic processes) with the strengths of the {"}conceptual{"} modeling philosophy (which relies on data driven inference). Such integration will accelerate progress on methods to define and discriminate among competing modeling options, which should be ideally incorporated in agile modeling frameworks and tested through a diagnostic evaluation approach.",
keywords = "hydrology, model agility, process-based models, sensitivity analysis",
author = "Mendoza, {Pablo A.} and Clark, {Martyn P.} and Michael Barlage and Balaji Rajagopalan and Luis Samaniego and Gab Abramowitz and Gupta, {Hoshin Vijai}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1002/2014WR015820",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "51",
pages = "716--728",
journal = "Water Resources Research",
issn = "0043-1397",
publisher = "American Geophysical Union",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are we unnecessarily constraining the agility of complex process-based models?

AU - Mendoza, Pablo A.

AU - Clark, Martyn P.

AU - Barlage, Michael

AU - Rajagopalan, Balaji

AU - Samaniego, Luis

AU - Abramowitz, Gab

AU - Gupta, Hoshin Vijai

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - In this commentary we suggest that hydrologists and land-surface modelers may be unnecessarily constraining the behavioral agility of very complex physics-based models. We argue that the relatively poor performance of such models can occur due to restrictions on their ability to refine their portrayal of physical processes, in part because of strong a priori constraints in: (i) the representation of spatial variability and hydrologic connectivity, (ii) the choice of model parameterizations, and (iii) the choice of model parameter values. We provide a specific example of problems associated with strong a priori constraints on parameters in a land surface model. Moving forward, we assert that improving hydrological models requires integrating the strengths of the "physics-based" modeling philosophy (which relies on prior knowledge of hydrologic processes) with the strengths of the "conceptual" modeling philosophy (which relies on data driven inference). Such integration will accelerate progress on methods to define and discriminate among competing modeling options, which should be ideally incorporated in agile modeling frameworks and tested through a diagnostic evaluation approach.

AB - In this commentary we suggest that hydrologists and land-surface modelers may be unnecessarily constraining the behavioral agility of very complex physics-based models. We argue that the relatively poor performance of such models can occur due to restrictions on their ability to refine their portrayal of physical processes, in part because of strong a priori constraints in: (i) the representation of spatial variability and hydrologic connectivity, (ii) the choice of model parameterizations, and (iii) the choice of model parameter values. We provide a specific example of problems associated with strong a priori constraints on parameters in a land surface model. Moving forward, we assert that improving hydrological models requires integrating the strengths of the "physics-based" modeling philosophy (which relies on prior knowledge of hydrologic processes) with the strengths of the "conceptual" modeling philosophy (which relies on data driven inference). Such integration will accelerate progress on methods to define and discriminate among competing modeling options, which should be ideally incorporated in agile modeling frameworks and tested through a diagnostic evaluation approach.

KW - hydrology

KW - model agility

KW - process-based models

KW - sensitivity analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027919554&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85027919554&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/2014WR015820

DO - 10.1002/2014WR015820

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85027919554

VL - 51

SP - 716

EP - 728

JO - Water Resources Research

JF - Water Resources Research

SN - 0043-1397

IS - 1

ER -