the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Enhancing Parameter Calibration in Land Surface Models Using a Multi-Task Surrogate Model within a Differentiable Parameter Learning Framework
Abstract. Land surface models (LSMs) are essential for simulating terrestrial processes and their interactions with the atmosphere. However, parameter calibration in LSMs remains a major challenge owing to complex process coupling and parameter uncertainty. For example, key parameters, such as plant function type (PFT), are often estimated using field measurements or empirical relationships, which are characterized by limited accuracy, resulting in systematic biases and inconsistencies. In this study, we introduce multiple-task differentiable parameter learning (MdPL), a deep learning framework that combines a multitask surrogate model with a differentiable parameter generator for more accurate and efficient LSM parameter calibration. The multitask surrogate learns both shared and task-specific features to predict multiple fluxes, and the differentiable generator infers site-specific parameters from meteorological forcings and land surface attributes. Calibrated across 20 sites spanning four PFTs, the MdPL-calibrated Integrated Land Simulator (ILS) achieved a 15 % decrease in RMSE for both sensible and latent heat flux simulations. Further, benchmarking using the PLUMBER2 dataset showed that the MdPL-calibrated ILS outperformed standard LSMs (CLM5, JULES, Noah, and GFDL), and its accuracy matched or exceeded those of LSTM-based approaches. The assessment of its transferability via leave-one-out cross-validation for evergreen forest, woodland, and cultivation sites showed reasonable transfer performance for evergreen forests and woodlands, with parameter sets yielding close-to-optimal flux simulations, even without site specification. However, for cultivation sites, PFT parameters exhibited strong site specificity, with parameter sets from the same PFT not reliably transferred. Despite its reduced effectiveness of the framework for cultivation sites under fixed PFT settings, it offers a scalable and physically grounded approach for enhancing parameter calibration in complex LSMs.
- Preprint
(1791 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 26 Nov 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3301', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Sep 2025
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-3301/egusphere-2025-3301-RC1-supplement.pdfReplyCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-3301-RC1 -
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3301', Shanning Bao, 07 Nov 2025
reply
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of RC2 and its content was therefore removed on 11 November 2025.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3301-CC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3301', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Nov 2025
reply
The manuscript entitled “Enhancing Parameter Calibration in Land Surface Models Using a Multi-Task Surrogate Model within a Differentiable Parameter Learning Framework” aimed to calibrate parameters of the ILS model by leveraging the differentiability of neural networks. The study demonstrates that the proposed multi-task differentiable parameter learning (MdPL) framework achieves better sensible and latent heat simulation performance than the default parameter set and outperforms the single-task version.
While the topic is relevant and the approach technically interesting, I have serious concerns about the validity and scientific contribution of the study in its current form. Specifically, there are two major issues that critically affect the plausibility and impact of the work:
- Lack of direct physical connection between calibration and model parameters:
The ILS model parameters were not directly optimized through differentiable learning. Instead, the learning process was conducted through a surrogate model. This inevitably introduces fitting errors and weakens the physical interpretability of the results. The surrogate model may not faithfully represent the true relationships between model parameters and physical processes within the ILS framework. - Insufficient evaluation and benchmarking:
The study assesses calibrated model outputs only against simulations using the default parameter set. Without comparison against other calibration methods (e.g., PFT-specific parameter optimization and etc), it is difficult to judge the value or robustness of the proposed approach. Given the many existing parameter calibration techniques, it is essential to demonstrate that MdPL performs competitively or superiorly to conventional parameter calibration methods.
These two issues fundamentally limit the scientific credibility and general applicability of the work. Nonetheless, the authors’ efforts are appreciated, and I encourage them to consider these points in future work to strengthen the study’s methodological and physical rigor.
Minor Comments
- Introduction: The literature review on differentiable parameter learning is incomplete. Please include more relevant studies (e.g., Bao et al., JAMES, 2023) to better contextualize the contribution.
- Line 110: The manuscript claims to mitigate the impact of sparse and noisy observational data, but this is not clearly demonstrated. Please elaborate or revise this claim.
- Lines 112–114: The notation for section references (“Section 2,” “Sect. 3,” “Sect. 4”) should be unified.
- Figure 1: This figure should appear after the corresponding description. As currently presented, it is difficult to interpret without prior explanation of the framework.
- Line 158: Please define the symbol ‘L’
- Section 2.3: Consider summarizing the evaluation metrics in a concise table instead of repeating similar textual descriptions.
- Table 1: Add horizontal lines to clearly separate plant functional types.
- Line 225: The term “Mediterranean climate” is more appropriate than “subtropical climate” for ‘Csa’ and ‘Csb’.
- Line 230: Provide details on parameter sampling: Was it random? How many samples were drawn per range? Did the authors account for potential nonlinear parameter–output relationships (e.g., exponential)?
- Table 2: Explain how the key parameters influence model outputs, and consider providing response curves to illustrate these relationships.
- Line 241: Justify the use of only one pre-training dataset and provide its distribution in a figure.
- Line 257: Correct grammatical errors.
- Line 266: Explain the rationale for using different hidden layer sizes in single-task and multi-task surrogate models, or directly use the same size.
- Section 2.4.3: The three experiments appear sequential rather than parallel. Consider dividing them into three sub-sections—e.g., (2.4.3) Comparison between Multi-Task and Single-Task Models, (2.4.4) Benchmarking, and (2.4.5) Transferability Evaluation.
- Line 300: Clarify why only three plant functional types were evaluated.
- Results and Discussion: This section should be streamlined to highlight key findings rather than listing results exhaustively. Focus on the major insights and implications.
- Line 371: ‘LSM’?
- Lines 376–379: The text mentions identical RMSEs between LSTM and ILS_MdPL and an increasing difference at larger timescales, but this is not supported by Figure 5. Please check for consistency.
- Table 4: The PFT-calibrated parameters perform worse than the mean of site-specific parameters, which is counterintuitive (LSTM should be more flexible than mean and should have better performance). Please investigate potential causes (e.g., missing features or model structure issues).
- Figure 6: The figure caption does not match the content—it does not directly compare KGE but instead presents temporal LE and H. Please revise accordingly.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3301-RC2 - Lack of direct physical connection between calibration and model parameters:
Data sets
Dataset and results for dPL and MdPL Experiments Wenpeng Xie https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15753067
Model code and software
model code, figure and table reproduction Wenpeng Xie https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15748737
Interactive computing environment
ILS environment and Pytorch environment Wenpeng Xie https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15748737
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,873 | 32 | 12 | 1,917 | 27 | 30 |
- HTML: 1,873
- PDF: 32
- XML: 12
- Total: 1,917
- BibTeX: 27
- EndNote: 30
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1