the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Introducing Iterative Model Calibration (IMC) v1.0: A Generalizable Framework for Numerical Model Calibration with a CAESAR-Lisflood Case Study
Abstract. In geosciences, including hydrology and geomorphology, the reliance on numerical models necessitates the precise calibration of their parameters to effectively translate information from observed to unobserved settings. Traditional calibration techniques, however, are marked by poor generalizability, demanding significant manual labor for data preparation and the calibration process itself. Moreover, the utility of machine learning-based and data-driven approaches is curtailed by the requirement for the numerical model to be differentiable for optimization purposes, which challenges their generalizability across different models. Furthermore, the potential of freely available geomorphological data remains underexploited in existing methodologies. In response to these challenges, we introduce a generalizable framework for calibrating numerical models, with a particular focus on geomorphological models, named Iterative Model Calibration (IMC). This approach efficiently identifies the optimal set of parameters for a given numerical model through a strategy based on a Gaussian neighborhood algorithm. We demonstrate the efficacy of IMC by applying it to the calibration of the widely-used Landscape Evolution Model, CAESAR-Lisflood, achieving high precision. Once calibrated, this model is capable of generating geomorphic data for both retrospective and prospective analyses at various temporal resolutions, and retrospective and prospective analyses at various temporal resolutions, specifically tailored for scenarios such as gully catchment landscape evolution.
- Preprint
(2202 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1191', Juan Antonio Añel, 15 Jun 2024
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.htmlThe problem is that you have not published the code and data necessary to replicate your manuscript. Our policy clearly states that all the code and data used in a manuscript must be published at the submission time in one of the acceptable repositories listed in our policy, and that the Code and Data Availability section must contain the details (links and DOIs) for such repositories. Instead this section in your manuscript reads "The executable code, data and other relevant files will be publicly shared."
You have provided internally a Google Drive address containing part of these assets (not all of them, according to my understanding). This is not enough. First, Google Drive is not a repository valid for scientific publication; second, all the information must be available to every potential reader in Discussions to facilitate the peer-review and comments by the community, and sharing it privately with the editors fails to comply with the Discussions peer-review process.
Therefore, please, publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories, and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and DOI) as soon as possible, as we can not accept manuscripts in Discussions that do not comply with our policy. Therefore, the current situation with your manuscript is irregular.
In this way, if you do not fix this problem, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal.
Also, you must include in a potentially reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section, containing the links and DOI of the repository containing code and data.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1191-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Kien Nguyen Thanh, 20 Jun 2024
Dear Juan
Thank you for your comment. We have uploaded and publicly shared the code via a github repository at: https://github.com/cbanerji/IMC.
We have updated the "Code and data availability" section to include the link: "The executable code, data and other relevant files are publicly available at https://github.com/cbanerji/IMC"
Regards,
Kien Nguyen, on behalf of co-authors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1191-AC1 -
CEC2: 'Not solved - compliance with the code policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 15 Jul 2024
I have come through your manuscript and the reply to my comment again to learn that you have failed again to comply with our Code Availability policy. This is unfortunate. You have paid little attention to our policy, despite you must check it before submission, and I pointed you out it in my previous comment. You have archived your code in a Git repository; however, Git repositories are not valid for scientific publication. As I mentioned, this is clear in our policy: https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html#item3. Also, GitHub mentions it and encourages users to migrate to other long-term archival possibilities for such purposes.
Therefore, I must insist that you archive your code in one of the repositories acceptable for scientific publication (see examples in our policy) and reply to this comment with its link and DOI (note that GitHub does not issue DOIs, as I requested in my previous comment). You must also include the details of the new repository in any reviewed version of your manuscript.
Unfortunately, if you do not solve this issue, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication.Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1191-CEC2 -
CC3: 'Reply on CEC2', Tom Coulthard, 15 Jul 2024
Hi Juan - apologies for this misunderstanding - we'll transfer the GIT information to Zenodo and update with a DOI accordingly.Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1191-CC3 -
CC4: 'Reply on CC3', Tom Coulthard, 16 Jul 2024
Details and files have now been transferred to Zenodo:
Banerjee, C., Nguyen, K., Fookes, C., Hancock, G., & Coulthard, T. (2024). Iterative Model Calibration (IMC) v1.0. In Geoscientific Model Development. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12744799
https://zenodo.org/records/12744799
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1191-CC4
-
CC4: 'Reply on CC3', Tom Coulthard, 16 Jul 2024
-
CC3: 'Reply on CEC2', Tom Coulthard, 15 Jul 2024
-
CEC2: 'Not solved - compliance with the code policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 15 Jul 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Kien Nguyen Thanh, 20 Jun 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1191', Jorge Ramirez, 24 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1191/egusphere-2024-1191-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Kien Nguyen Thanh, 06 Jul 2024
Dear RC1,
Thank you for your comments and useful insights. They have helped us to improve the quality of our paper. Please find in the attached file the details of our response and the revised manuscript with the new text highlighted in blue.
On behalf of all co-authors,
Kien Nguyen.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Kien Nguyen Thanh, 06 Jul 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1191', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Jul 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1191/egusphere-2024-1191-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC2', Chayan Banerjee, 11 Jul 2024
Dear RC2,
Thank you for your comments and useful insights. They have helped us to improve the quality of our paper. Please find in the attached file the details of our response and the revised manuscript with the new text highlighted in purple.
On behalf of all co-authors,
Chayan Banerjee.
-
RC3: 'Reply on CC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Jul 2024
I would like to thank the authors for sharing the latest iteration of their manuscript. I am pleased to see that most of my suggestions have been addressed, and in my opinion, this paper is in a much stronger position to be accepted for full publication.
A small comment from me: You still write in the 1st paragraph of the problem statement (section 4.1) that the "...secondary objective or application of this calibrated numerical model is to predict the landscape evolution of past or future years (or days or months)..." and in the 2nd paragraph of section 4.1: "stSecond, we want the calibrated-CL to perform interpolation and generate DEM data for different temporal resolutions like days, weeks, months, and years, within or outside (past/future) the 2019-2021 period". But you've said in your reply to my comments that these statements had been removed. Could you remove these please?
Perhaps you should re-write section 4.1 to explain briefly what you intend to do for section 5 - i.e. comparing calibration approaches; experiments with different lengths of calibration runs; evaluating IMC’s Efficiency in CL parameter re-estimation?Â
Thank you.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1191-RC3 -
CC2: 'Reply on RC3', Chayan Banerjee, 15 Jul 2024
Thank you for your comments and useful insights.Â
We have now rewritten the mentioned Section: 4.1. (see lines 222-230). Additionally, we have made a minor change to the abstract (see lines 10-12).
The changes are in 'cyan ' color.
Â
On behalf of all co-authors,
Chayan Banerjee.
-
CC2: 'Reply on RC3', Chayan Banerjee, 15 Jul 2024
-
RC3: 'Reply on CC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Jul 2024
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC2', Chayan Banerjee, 11 Jul 2024
Model code and software
IMC calibration codes Chayan Banerjee, Kien Nguyen, Clinton Fookes, Gregory Hancock, and Thomas Coulthard https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o2Le5Lxf8hDyWmpD9BWeylyQGGzumg8e/view?usp=drive_link
Video supplement
Demonstration videos Chayan Banerjee, Kien Nguyen, Clinton Fookes, Gregory Hancock, and Thomas Coulthard https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v6JIj8lQ2uIKuglzVByZfF7fJAp0L8oH/view?usp=drive_link
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
568 | 119 | 49 | 736 | 18 | 19 |
- HTML: 568
- PDF: 119
- XML: 49
- Total: 736
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1