← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.06382 · v1
From hydrological laws to catchment models: A process-based model matches deep-learning accuracy on three continents
首次提交 2026-11-04 19:45
版本更新 2026-11-04 19:45
雷达观测 2026-11-05 11:10
摘要
Dooge asked whether hydrology has laws at the catchment scale. We ask whether a low-dimensional system built under physical laws can match the accuracy of neural networks that outperform process-based models on the same inputs. Three laws constrain a lumped catchment model. Conservation makes it a flux-connected storage network, dissipation fixes the sign of every flux and aggregation determines how the unresolved composition enters the fluxes, through effective laws over threshold distributions and a memory of the forcing. These laws admit four kinds of refinement. A parsimonious model under them, CaRT (11 parameters per catchment), is refined in a loop assisted by AI agents. Each refinement addresses an observed deficit through a hypothesis from the literature. The result, CaRT+, has fourteen states, 35 parameters per catchment and no daily neural network. Most refinements follow from aggregation over thresholds or from variables that carry no water but modulate fluxes. On 602 British and 593 US gauged catchments, single CaRT+ models reach median Nash-Sutcliffe efficiencies of 0.863 and 0.765 in held-out years. A stateful LSTM reaches 0.869 and 0.751 and an entity-aware LSTM 0.862 and 0.754, while three-seed LSTM ensembles remain ahead of the CaRT+ ensemble by 0.003-0.012 in median paired NSE. On 505 drier Australian gauged catchments unused in development, single CaRT+ models reach 0.778 against 0.762 and 0.753 for the two LSTMs. The results suggest that catchment-scale laws exist as laws of form, with the constitutive families shared and only their parameters learned.
作者备注：61 pages, 12 figures, 13 tables, plus 19 pages of Supporting Information
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-04 19:45 · 最新观测版本
From hydrological laws to catchment models: A process-based model matches deep-learning accuracy on three continents
Dooge asked whether hydrology has laws at the catchment scale. We ask whether a low-dimensional system built under physical laws can match the accuracy of neural networks that outperform process-based models on the same inputs. Three laws constrain a lumped catchment model. Conservation makes it a flux-connected storage network, dissipation fixes the sign of every flux and aggregation determines how the unresolved composition enters the fluxes, through effective laws over threshold distributions and a memory of the forcing. These laws admit four kinds of refinement. A parsimonious model under them, CaRT (11 parameters per catchment), is refined in a loop assisted by AI agents. Each refinement addresses an observed deficit through a hypothesis from the literature. The result, CaRT+, has fourteen states, 35 parameters per catchment and no daily neural network. Most refinements follow from aggregation over thresholds or from variables that carry no water but modulate fluxes. On 602 British and 593 US gauged catchments, single CaRT+ models reach median Nash-Sutcliffe efficiencies of 0.863 and 0.765 in held-out years. A stateful LSTM reaches 0.869 and 0.751 and an entity-aware LSTM 0.862 and 0.754, while three-seed LSTM ensembles remain ahead of the CaRT+ ensemble by 0.003-0.012 in median paired NSE. On 505 drier Australian gauged catchments unused in development, single CaRT+ models reach 0.778 against 0.762 and 0.753 for the two LSTMs. The results suggest that catchment-scale laws exist as laws of form, with the constitutive families shared and only their parameters learned.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗