the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Reliability diagnostics for learned input-to-parameter relationships in differentiable hybrid models: RELIP v1.0 with a large-sample hydrologic evaluation
Abstract. Predictive performance remains the usual basis for assessing geoscientific models, but neural-parameterized mechanistic models expose another object that may be interpreted: the learned mapping from inputs to parameters. RELIP v1.0 evaluates whether that mapping is reproducible. It proceeds through four linked levels: predictive adequacy, stability across random seeds and loss functions, consistency of dominant controls across parameter-learning formulations, and compactness of the full relationship matrix. We apply RELIP to differentiable HBV parameter learning for 531 CAMELS-US catchments, comparing deterministic, Monte Carlo dropout, and distributional formulations under three losses and five seeds. The three formulations produced closely comparable streamflow skill, so predictive metrics alone offered little basis for choosing among them. RELIP distinguished them at the level of relationship structure. The distributional formulation had lower cross-seed variability in Spearman correlations, more reproducible dominant controls, and the most compact relationship matrix. Seven of fourteen mechanistic parameters formed a shared dominant-control core. Parameter spread also contained structured information, although several gradients were coupled to parameter means or boundary proximity. These results identify learned parameterization structure as a separate target of model assessment and provide a practical diagnostic for formulations that appear similar in prediction.
- Preprint
(2875 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4763 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 06 Dec 2026)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4258 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 30 Oct 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Response to Code and Data Policy Concerns – dMG v1.4.1 and hydrodl2 v1.3.4', Jungang Luo, 31 Oct 2026
reply
Dear Prof. Añel,
Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. We have checked the repositories and archival records of the two third-party software packages used in our study.
- dMG v1.4.1. The exact version used in our study is archived on Zenodo by its developers: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19601912
- hydrodl2 v1.3.4. The version-specific source code is available at https://github.com/mhpi/hydrodl2/releases/tag/v1.3.4. The developers have also archived the hydrodl2 source code on Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20452840. Our study uses only three utility functions from hydrodl2 (change_param_range, uh_gamma, and uh_conv). A line-by-line comparison shows that their implementations in this Zenodo archive are identical to those in v1.3.4. Although the record is not explicitly labelled as v1.3.4, it provides permanent access to the code on which our results depend.
Both packages are distributed by The Pennsylvania State University under a Non-Commercial Software License Agreement, which we, as non-copyright holders, are not able to change.
We would be grateful if you could confirm whether this arrangement is acceptable for these third-party dependencies, or let us know if any further action is required. If we are invited to submit a revised manuscript, we will update the Code and Data Availability section and add the corresponding references to the bibliography.
Kind regards,
Jungang Luo, on behalf of all authorsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4258-AC1 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 31 Oct 2026
reply
Dear authors,
Many thanks for addressing this issue so quickly. Having a Zenodo repository for both is enough. Please, in any potentially reviewed version of your manuscript include links and citations to them. I can confirm that with this information the current version of your manuscript is in compliance with the policy of the journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4258-CEC2
-
AC1: 'Response to Code and Data Policy Concerns – dMG v1.4.1 and hydrodl2 v1.3.4', Jungang Luo, 31 Oct 2026
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4258', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Oct 2026
reply
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your interesting manuscript. I appreciate the effort to address an important and timely issue in differentiable hybrid hydrological modeling: whether learned relationships between catchment attributes and mechanistic model parameters are reproducible, even when competing formulations exhibit similar predictive performance.
The evaluation across 531 CAMELS-US catchments, three parameter-learning formulations, multiple loss functions, and random seeds provides a promising foundation. The manuscript is generally well organized, and the distinction between predictive performance and the stability of learned relationships is particularly relevant to current hydrological research.
Nevertheless, I believe that several fundamental methodological questions remain insufficiently resolved. Addressing them could substantially strengthen both the scientific contribution and the practical relevance of RELIP.
1. Predictive optimization versus physical interpretation
My primary concern relates to the interpretation of the learned attribute-to-parameter relationships.
The neural network is trained to minimize errors in HBV-simulated discharge, rather than to recover independently verified physical relationships between catchment attributes and hydrological parameters. Therefore, a reproducible relationship may represent a successful predictive parameterization without necessarily reflecting a genuine hydrological control.
How can RELIP distinguish between these possibilities?
This distinction is particularly important because the manuscript interprets relationships involving catchment characteristics such as slope, aridity, soil conductivity, and potential evapotranspiration.
I encourage the authors to more explicitly separate the reproducibility of learned relationships from their physical validity. The existing differentiable parameter-learning literature provides an appropriate foundation for this discussion, while related work on explainability in regionally optimized hydrological neural networks (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.133689) may offer useful methodological perspectives on the interpretation of learned model behavior.
An additional analysis examining whether the identified relationships remain consistent across independently optimized, similarly performing models would be particularly informative.
2. Parameter identifiability and equifinality
A closely related issue concerns the identifiability of HBV parameters.
Different parameter combinations may produce nearly equivalent discharge simulations. Consequently, even a highly reproducible attribute–parameter relationship cannot automatically be interpreted as physically correct if the corresponding parameter is poorly identifiable.
This raises a fundamental question: can RELIP distinguish a physically meaningful relationship from a stable but potentially non-identifiable parameterization?
The hydrological equifinality literature (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.007) and work on identifying attribute-to-parameter transfer functions (https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR021253) provide relevant foundations for examining this issue.
A targeted experiment involving multi-start calibration of HBV for representative catchments, followed by an examination of near-equivalent parameter sets, could help establish how RELIP behaves under parameter equifinality.
A synthetic or semi-synthetic experiment with known attribute–parameter relationships would provide an additional, particularly convincing test of whether RELIP can distinguish reproducibility from correctness.
3. Hyperparameter optimization and fairness of the formulation comparison
I consider the absence of systematic hyperparameter optimization (HPO) one of the most important methodological limitations.
The deterministic, MC-dropout, and distributional formulations are compared using largely fixed hyperparameter settings, despite differences in their regularization mechanisms and parameterization structures. Therefore, the reported differences in relationship stability may partly reflect the selected configurations rather than intrinsic properties of the formulations.
This is especially consequential because the principal conclusions concern the relative reliability of these formulations.
Hydrological studies of random-search optimization (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.132003) demonstrates why conclusions drawn from individual configurations warrant careful examination. Related evidence on catchment-wise optimized ensembles (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.132269) also illustrates the importance of distinguishing configuration-dependent predictive variability from the robustness of an optimized modeling system.
I therefore recommend a systematic HPO experiment with at least 100 candidate configurations per formulation following the above literature, using clearly defined search spaces, comparable computational budgets, and independent validation-based model selection.
Importantly, the RELIP diagnostics should then be repeated across multiple seeds and several well-performing or near-optimal configurations.
Such an experiment could lead to either of two scientifically valuable findings: the reported instability may decrease substantially after appropriate optimization, or different near-optimal models may retain distinct attribute–parameter relationships despite comparable predictive performance.
Both outcomes would provide important evidence concerning the reliability and interpretation of differentiable parameter learning.
4. Incremental methodological contribution of RELIP
The manuscript builds upon established differentiable parameter learning and attribute-based hydrological regionalization. Its main methodological contribution therefore appears to concern the assessment of learned relationships rather than the underlying parameter-learning architecture.
I encourage the authors to demonstrate more explicitly what the four-level RELIP framework reveals beyond conventional seed sensitivity, parameter stability, correlation analysis, and established identifiability diagnostics.
For example, a comparison with a simpler baseline consisting of predictive screening and cross-seed correlation stability could demonstrate which additional reliability problems are detected by the complete framework.
This would help establish the incremental diagnostic value of RELIP and clarify when its additional complexity is justified.
5. Parameterizer complexity, attribute dependence, and formulation-specific regularization
The current parameterizer maps 35 catchment attributes to 14 mechanistic parameters through a two-hidden-layer MLP. It would be useful to establish whether the observed relationships depend on this architectural choice.
A limited ablation involving a simpler linear parameter mapping or a smaller MLP, evaluated through the same differentiable HBV model, could clarify whether model complexity contributes to relationship instability.
Similarly, dimensionality reduction or controlled attribute-subset experiments could reveal whether dominant relationships are sensitive to correlations among catchment descriptors. Such tests should preserve the distinction between statistical associations and physically interpretable controls.
The comparison between the distributional and other formulations would also benefit from isolating the contribution of KL regularization and other formulation-specific settings. Existing work on uncertainty estimation in deep-learning rainfall–runoff modeling (https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1673-2022) offers relevant context, although uncertainty in streamflow predictions and uncertainty in learned mechanistic parameters should not be conflated.
6. Hydrological adequacy and robustness of the reported relationships
Although the three formulations exhibit broadly comparable streamflow performance, the reported median absolute percentage biases are relatively substantial.
This raises an important question: are the identified attribute–parameter relationships equally reproducible in catchments with relatively poor simulations and those with demonstrably satisfactory hydrological performance?
I recommend stratifying the RELIP diagnostics by predictive adequacy, particularly considering bias and efficiency metrics. This could establish whether the main conclusions persist among well-simulated catchments.
Furthermore, the present temporal evaluation does not fully establish the transferability of the learned relationships to independent catchments. A held-out catchment or regional validation experiment would substantially strengthen the generalizability claims.
7. Positioning within recent literature and practical relevance
The manuscript cites several important foundational studies on differentiable modeling, regionalization, and large-sample hydrology. Nevertheless, the discussion could more closely connect these foundations to recent developments in differentiable process–parameter learning, including https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.133594, and to the broader challenges of identifiability, optimization-induced variability, and physical interpretation.
I also encourage the authors to clarify the practical consequences of the proposed diagnostics. For example, can RELIP help practitioners select more trustworthy parameter-learning formulations, identify parameters requiring additional constraints, or improve confidence in transfer to ungauged catchments?
Such a discussion would strengthen the connection between methodological reproducibility and meaningful hydrological applications.
Finally, the Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusions should consistently distinguish statistical reproducibility, parameter identifiability, and physical validity. These are related but fundamentally different properties.
I hope the authors will view these comments as an opportunity to strengthen the scientific foundations of RELIP. Importantly, the suggested experiments could produce valuable findings regardless of whether they confirm or modify the current conclusions.
I look forward to reading a revised manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4258-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 232 | 70 | 23 | 325 | 50 | 30 | 22 |
- HTML: 232
- PDF: 70
- XML: 23
- Total: 325
- Supplement: 50
- BibTeX: 30
- EndNote: 22
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
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.html
Namely, you do not provide a repository for the dMG v1.4.1 and hydrodl2 v1.3.4.
The GMD review and publication process depends on reviewers and community commentators being able to access, during the discussion phase, the code and data on which a manuscript depends, and on ensuring the provenance of replicability of the published papers for years after their publication. Please, therefore, publish dMG and hydroldl2 in an acceptable repository and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and a permanent identifier for it (e.g. DOI)) as soon as possible. We cannot have manuscripts under discussion that do not comply with our policy.
Later, if the Topical Editor decides to continue with the review or publication process of your manuscript and you are requested to upload a new version of it, then The 'Code and Data Availability’ section of your manuscript must also be modified to cite the new repository locations, and corresponding references added to the bibliography.
I must note that if you do not fix this problem, we cannot continue with the peer-review process or accept your manuscript for publication in GMD.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor