CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Hydrological Forecasting Using AIHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFlood Risk Assessment and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A distributed hybrid physics–AI framework for learning corrections of internal hydrological fluxes and enhancing high-resolution regionalized flood modeling

Open access
Huynh, Ngo Nghi Truyen, Garambois, Pierre-André, Renard, Benjamin, Colleoni, François, Monnier, Jérôme, Roux, Hélène·2025·Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
DOI 10.5194/hess-29-3589-2025

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

To advance the discovery of scale-relevant hydrological laws while better exploiting massive multisource data, merging artificial intelligence with process-based modeling has emerged as a compelling approach, as demonstrated in recent lumped hydrological modeling studies. This research proposes a general spatially distributed hybrid modeling framework that seamlessly combines differentiable process-based models with neural networks. Specifically, we focus on hybridizing the hydrological module – built atop a differentiable kinematic wave routing over a flow direction grid – using a process-parameterization network that refines internal water fluxes, with all conceptual parameters estimated by a regionalization network trained simultaneously. We evaluate flood modeling performance and analyze the interpretability of learned conceptual parameters and corrections of internal fluxes using two high-resolution datasets (d x =1 km and d t =1 h). The first dataset involves 235 catchments in France, used for local calibration–validation and model structure comparisons between the classical Génie Rural (GR)-like model and the hybrid approach. The second dataset presents a challenging multi-catchment modeling setup in flash-flood-prone areas to demonstrate the framework's regionalization learning capabilities. The results show that the hybrid models achieve superior accuracy and robustness compared to classical approaches in both spatial and temporal validation. Analysis of the spatially distributed parameters and internal fluxes reveals the hybrid models' nuanced behavior, their adaptability to diverse hydrological responses, and their potential to uncover physical processes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5194/hess-29-3589-2025

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 . Figure 1. Hybrid physics-AI framework, applied to the spatially distributed GR-like and kinematic wave model, involving a pair of processparameterization and regionalization neural networks. The pair of neural networks is used to (i) correct internal fluxes (using neutralized atmospheric data) and (ii) estimate the model parameters (using physical descriptors), with their weights optimized through high-dimensional optimization algorithms using an adjoint model to obtain accurate gradients of the cost function.
Figure 1 . Figure 1. Hybrid physics-AI framework, applied to the spatially distributed GR-like and kinematic wave model, involving a pair of processparameterization and regionalization neural networks. The pair of neural networks is used to (i) correct internal fluxes (using neutralized atmospheric data) and (ii) estimate the model parameters (using physical descriptors), with their weights optimized through high-dimensional optimization algorithms using an adjoint model to obtain accurate gradients of the cost function.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 . Figure 2. Study areas used for evaluation. The first area consists of 235 non-nested catchments in France, while the second area includes 21 catchments in a multiple-catchment setup in the Eastern Mediterranean region, representing contrasting hydrological conditions.
Figure 2 . Figure 2. Study areas used for evaluation. The first area consists of 235 non-nested catchments in France, while the second area includes 21 catchments in a multiple-catchment setup in the Eastern Mediterranean region, representing contrasting hydrological conditions.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 3 . Figure 3. Comparison of streamflow simulation across representative small, medium, and large catchments randomly selected among the 235 catchments in France during the validation period.
Figure 3 . Figure 3. Comparison of streamflow simulation across representative small, medium, and large catchments randomly selected among the 235 catchments in France during the validation period.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 4 . Figure 4. Model performance comparison of local calibration methods across 235 catchments in France. The two boxes in lighter colors represent the classical GR models (GR.U and GR.D), while the two boxes in darker colors represent the ϕ1-hybrid models (GRNN.U and GRNN.D). The evaluation is based on simulated discharges over the calibration and validation period, using NSE, KGE, and RMSE metrics.
Figure 4 . Figure 4. Model performance comparison of local calibration methods across 235 catchments in France. The two boxes in lighter colors represent the classical GR models (GR.U and GR.D), while the two boxes in darker colors represent the ϕ1-hybrid models (GRNN.U and GRNN.D). The evaluation is based on simulated discharges over the calibration and validation period, using NSE, KGE, and RMSE metrics.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 5 . Figure 5. Comparison of model performance in simulating flood event signatures, presented as the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the relative error (RE) between observed and simulated values for peak flow (Epf), runoff coefficient (Erc), flood flow (Eff), and baseflow (Ebf). The evaluation is based on 2,718 flood events across 235 catchments during the validation period (08/2013-07/2019).
Figure 5 . Figure 5. Comparison of model performance in simulating flood event signatures, presented as the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the relative error (RE) between observed and simulated values for peak flow (Epf), runoff coefficient (Erc), flood flow (Eff), and baseflow (Ebf). The evaluation is based on 2,718 flood events across 235 catchments during the validation period (08/2013-07/2019).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 6 . Figure 6. Comparison of multi-catchment regionalization performance for different methods. The evaluation is based on NSE scores computed over three periods: the 3-year calibration period (excluding a 1-year warmup), the first 18 months, and the last 18 months of the 3-year validation period for 11 calibration catchments and 10 validation catchments. The numbers in parentheses on the boxplots indicate the total number of samples evaluated, with the validation period split into two 18-month periods (sample counts are doubled for all catchments).
Figure 6 . Figure 6. Comparison of multi-catchment regionalization performance for different methods. The evaluation is based on NSE scores computed over three periods: the 3-year calibration period (excluding a 1-year warmup), the first 18 months, and the last 18 months of the 3-year validation period for 11 calibration catchments and 10 validation catchments. The numbers in parentheses on the boxplots indicate the total number of samples evaluated, with the validation period split into two 18-month periods (sample counts are doubled for all catchments).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 7 . Figure 7. (a) Comparison of NSE and RMSE metrics computed for 143 flood events detected in the validation period across 21 catchments in the MedEst region. (b) Comparison of streamflow simulations for representative small, medium, and large catchments during several flood events selected in the validation period.
Figure 7 . Figure 7. (a) Comparison of NSE and RMSE metrics computed for 143 flood events detected in the validation period across 21 catchments in the MedEst region. (b) Comparison of streamflow simulations for representative small, medium, and large catchments during several flood events selected in the validation period.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 8 . Figure 8. Maps of spatio-temporal average flux corrections g f q x∈Ω j t , where j = 1..Ng, for the Ng = 235 catchments, obtained through local calibrations of spatially uniform parameters with the hybrid model structure (GRNN.U). The function g(.) represents the transformation applied to the neural network output f q , which may differ depending on the specific flux being corrected. Red indicates corrections that tend to increase the current flux, while blue indicates corrections that reduce it, with white representing minimal or no effective correction.
Figure 8 . Figure 8. Maps of spatio-temporal average flux corrections g f q x∈Ω j t , where j = 1..Ng, for the Ng = 235 catchments, obtained through local calibrations of spatially uniform parameters with the hybrid model structure (GRNN.U). The function g(.) represents the transformation applied to the neural network output f q , which may differ depending on the specific flux being corrected. Red indicates corrections that tend to increase the current flux, while blue indicates corrections that reduce it, with white representing minimal or no effective correction.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 9 . Figure 9. (a) Heatmap of spatially averaged flux correction time series g f q (t) x∈Ω j , where j = 1..Ng, for the Ng = 235 catchments. These are obtained through local calibrations of spatially uniform parameters with the hybrid model structure (GRNN.U). (b) Boxplot of spatio-temporal average flux corrections g f q x∈Ω j t, where each boxplot represents 235 catchment-specific spatio-temporal averages.
Figure 9 . Figure 9. (a) Heatmap of spatially averaged flux correction time series g f q (t) x∈Ω j , where j = 1..Ng, for the Ng = 235 catchments. These are obtained through local calibrations of spatially uniform parameters with the hybrid model structure (GRNN.U). (b) Boxplot of spatio-temporal average flux corrections g f q x∈Ω j t, where each boxplot represents 235 catchment-specific spatio-temporal averages.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 10 . Figure 10. Visualization of flux corrections in the MedEst region obtained through regional calibration of spatially uniform parameters with the hybrid model (GRNN.U): (a) Spatial average of infiltrating flux correction 1 + fq,1(t) x , original and corrected infiltrating rainfall Ps(t) x , Ps(t) x ; (b) Maps of time-averaged infiltrating flux correction 1 + fq,1(x) t , original and corrected infiltrating rainfall Ps(x) t , Ps(x) t , where µ and σ represent the spatial average and standard deviation.
Figure 10 . Figure 10. Visualization of flux corrections in the MedEst region obtained through regional calibration of spatially uniform parameters with the hybrid model (GRNN.U): (a) Spatial average of infiltrating flux correction 1 + fq,1(t) x , original and corrected infiltrating rainfall Ps(t) x , Ps(t) x ; (b) Maps of time-averaged infiltrating flux correction 1 + fq,1(x) t , original and corrected infiltrating rainfall Ps(x) t , Ps(x) t , where µ and σ represent the spatial average and standard deviation.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 11 . Figure 11. Comparison of mass fluxes affecting water balance in interannual mean at basin scale over the 235 catchment set, for the classical GR model (GR.U) and the ϕ1-hybrid model (GRNN.U) using uniform mapping "U" for conceptual parameters θ, in local calibration. The x-axis shows 235 catchments, sorted by their average precipitation. Grey dots represent the interannual averages of precipitation P , actual evapotranspiration Es, exchange flux F , and lateral discharge Q lat over the calibration period for the classical model. Red dots and lines represent increases according to the hybrid model, while blue ones indicate decreases. For cases where F < 0, red indicates a larger magnitude in F for the hybrid model (more negative), while blue indicates a lesser magnitude (closer to zero).
Figure 11 . Figure 11. Comparison of mass fluxes affecting water balance in interannual mean at basin scale over the 235 catchment set, for the classical GR model (GR.U) and the ϕ1-hybrid model (GRNN.U) using uniform mapping "U" for conceptual parameters θ, in local calibration. The x-axis shows 235 catchments, sorted by their average precipitation. Grey dots represent the interannual averages of precipitation P , actual evapotranspiration Es, exchange flux F , and lateral discharge Q lat over the calibration period for the classical model. Red dots and lines represent increases according to the hybrid model, while blue ones indicate decreases. For cases where F < 0, red indicates a larger magnitude in F for the hybrid model (more negative), while blue indicates a lesser magnitude (closer to zero).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 12 . Figure 12. Hydrological interpretation of the non-linear response surface obtained using the learned flux correction neural network for infiltrating rainfall Ps = (1+fq,1)Ps, plotted with a production capacity of cp = 15 mm and neutralized evapotranspiration of En = 0 mm: (a) Original and corrected net rainfall Pr for different levels of the production state hp; (b) Response surface of original and corrected net rainfall Pr as a function of both the production state hp and neutralized rainfall Pn.
Figure 12 . Figure 12. Hydrological interpretation of the non-linear response surface obtained using the learned flux correction neural network for infiltrating rainfall Ps = (1+fq,1)Ps, plotted with a production capacity of cp = 15 mm and neutralized evapotranspiration of En = 0 mm: (a) Original and corrected net rainfall Pr for different levels of the production state hp; (b) Response surface of original and corrected net rainfall Pr as a function of both the production state hp and neutralized rainfall Pn.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure B1 . Figure B1. Maps of spatio-temporal average flux corrections g f q x∈Ω j t , where j = 1..Ng, for the Ng = 235 catchments, obtained through local calibrations of spatially distributed parameters with the hybrid model structure (GRNN.D). The function g(.) represents the transformation applied to the neural network output f q , which may differ depending on the specific flux being corrected. Red indicates corrections that tend to increase the current flux, while blue indicates corrections that reduce it, with white representing minimal or no effective correction.
Figure B1 . Figure B1. Maps of spatio-temporal average flux corrections g f q x∈Ω j t , where j = 1..Ng, for the Ng = 235 catchments, obtained through local calibrations of spatially distributed parameters with the hybrid model structure (GRNN.D). The function g(.) represents the transformation applied to the neural network output f q , which may differ depending on the specific flux being corrected. Red indicates corrections that tend to increase the current flux, while blue indicates corrections that reduce it, with white representing minimal or no effective correction.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure B2 . Figure B2. (a) Heatmap of spatially averaged flux correction time series g f q (t) x∈Ω j , where j = 1, . . . , Ng, for the Ng = 235 catchments. These are obtained through local calibrations of spatially distributed parameters with the hybrid model structure (GRNN.D). (b) Boxplot of spatio-temporal average flux corrections g f q x∈Ω j t, where each boxplot represents 235 catchment-specific spatio-temporal averages.
Figure B2 . Figure B2. (a) Heatmap of spatially averaged flux correction time series g f q (t) x∈Ω j , where j = 1, . . . , Ng, for the Ng = 235 catchments. These are obtained through local calibrations of spatially distributed parameters with the hybrid model structure (GRNN.D). (b) Boxplot of spatio-temporal average flux corrections g f q x∈Ω j t, where each boxplot represents 235 catchment-specific spatio-temporal averages.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure B3 . Figure B3. Comparison of mass fluxes affecting water balance in interannual mean at basin scale over the 235 catchment set, for the classical GR model (GR.D) and the ϕ1-hybrid model (GRNN.D) using distributed mapping "D" for conceptual parameters θ, in local calibration. The x-axis shows 235 catchments, sorted by their average precipitation. Grey dots represent the interannual averages of precipitation P , actual evapotranspiration Es, exchange flux F , and lateral discharge Q lat over the calibration period for the classical model. Red dots and lines represent increases according to the hybrid model, while blue ones indicate decreases. For cases where F < 0, red indicates a larger magnitude in F for the hybrid model (more negative), while blue indicates a lesser magnitude (closer to zero).
Figure B3 . Figure B3. Comparison of mass fluxes affecting water balance in interannual mean at basin scale over the 235 catchment set, for the classical GR model (GR.D) and the ϕ1-hybrid model (GRNN.D) using distributed mapping "D" for conceptual parameters θ, in local calibration. The x-axis shows 235 catchments, sorted by their average precipitation. Grey dots represent the interannual averages of precipitation P , actual evapotranspiration Es, exchange flux F , and lateral discharge Q lat over the calibration period for the classical model. Red dots and lines represent increases according to the hybrid model, while blue ones indicate decreases. For cases where F < 0, red indicates a larger magnitude in F for the hybrid model (more negative), while blue indicates a lesser magnitude (closer to zero).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure B4 . Figure B4. Comparison of mean absolute error (MAE), percent bias (PBIAS), and peak flow ratio (PFR) metrics computed for 143 flood events detected in the validation period across 21 catchments in the MedEst region.
Figure B4 . Figure B4. Comparison of mean absolute error (MAE), percent bias (PBIAS), and peak flow ratio (PFR) metrics computed for 143 flood events detected in the validation period across 21 catchments in the MedEst region.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure B5 . Figure B5. Visualization of flux corrections in the MedEst region obtained through regional calibration of spatially distributed parameters with the fully integrated hybrid model (GRNN.NN): (a) Spatial average of infiltrating flux correction 1 + fq,1(t)x , original and corrected infiltrating rainfall Ps(t)x , Ps(t)x ; (b) Maps of time-averaged infiltrating flux correction 1 + fq,1(x) t , original and corrected infiltrating rainfall Ps(x) t , Ps(x) t , where µ and σ represent the spatial average and standard deviation.
Figure B5 . Figure B5. Visualization of flux corrections in the MedEst region obtained through regional calibration of spatially distributed parameters with the fully integrated hybrid model (GRNN.NN): (a) Spatial average of infiltrating flux correction 1 + fq,1(t)x , original and corrected infiltrating rainfall Ps(t)x , Ps(t)x ; (b) Maps of time-averaged infiltrating flux correction 1 + fq,1(x) t , original and corrected infiltrating rainfall Ps(x) t , Ps(x) t , where µ and σ represent the spatial average and standard deviation.CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Agency, E. E.: CORINE Land Cover 2012 (raster 100 m), European Environment Agency [data set], 10.2909/a84ae124-c5c5-4577-8e10-511bfe55cc0d, 2019. · DOI
  2. Arnaud, P., Aubert, Y., Organde, D., Cantet, P., Fouchier, C., and Folton, N.: Estimation de l'aléa hydrométéorologique par une méthode par simulation : la méthode SHYREG : présentation – performances – bases de données, Houille Blanche, 100, 20–26, 10.1051/lhb/2014012, 2014. · DOI
  3. Artigue, G., Johannet, A., Borrell, V., and Pistre, S.: Flash flood forecasting in poorly gauged basins using neural networks: case study of the Gardon de Mialet basin (southern France), Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 3307–3324, 10.5194/nhess-12-3307-2012, 2012. · DOI
  4. Astagneau, P. C., Bourgin, F., Andréassian, V., and Perrin, C.: When does a parsimonious model fail to simulate floods? Learning from the seasonality of model bias, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 66, 1288–1305, 10.1080/02626667.2021.1923720, 2021. · DOI
  5. Astagneau, P. C., Bourgin, F., Andréassian, V., and Perrin, C.: Catchment response to intense rainfall: evaluating modelling hypotheses, Hydrol. Process., 36, e14676, 10.1002/hyp.14676, 2022. · DOI
  6. Brigode, P., Génot, B., Lobligeois, F., and Delaigue, O.: Summary sheets of watershed-scale hydroclimatic observed data for France, Recherche Data Gouv [data set], 10.15454/UV01P1, 2020. · DOI
  7. Chen, C., Jiang, J., Liao, Z., Zhou, Y., Wang, H., and Pei, Q.: A short-term flood prediction based on spatial deep learning network: a case study for Xi County, China, J. Hydrol., 607, 127535, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127535, 2022. · DOI
  8. Colleoni, F., Huynh, N. N. T., Garambois, P.-A., Jay-Allemand, M., Organde, D., Renard, B., De Fournas, T., El Baz, A., Demargne, J., and Javelle, P.: SMASH v1.0: A Differentiable and Regionalizable High-Resolution Hydrological Modeling and Data Assimilation Framework, EGUsphere [preprint], 10.5194/egusphere-2025-690, 2025. · DOI
  9. Delaigue, O., Guimarães, G. M., Brigode, P., Génot, B., Perrin, C., Soubeyroux, J.-M., Janet, B., Addor, N., and Andréassian, V.: CAMELS-FR dataset: a large-sample hydroclimatic dataset for France to explore hydrological diversity and support model benchmarking, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 1461–1479, 10.5194/essd-17-1461-2025, 2025. · DOI
  10. Dooge, J. C. I.: Looking for hydrologic laws, Water Resour. Res., 22, 46S–58S, 10.1029/WR022i09Sp0046S, 1986. · DOI
  11. Douinot, A., Roux, H., Garambois, P.-A., and Dartus, D.: Using a multi-hypothesis framework to improve the understanding of flow dynamics during flash floods, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 5317–5340, 10.5194/hess-22-5317-2018, 2018. · DOI
  12. Feng, D., Liu, J., Lawson, K., and Shen, C.: Differentiable, learnable, regionalized process-based models with multiphysical outputs can approach state-of-the-art hydrologic prediction accuracy, Water Resour. Res., 58, e2022WR032404, 10.1029/2022WR032404, 2022. · DOI
  13. Ficchì, A., Perrin, C., and Andréassian, V.: Hydrological modelling at multiple sub-daily time steps: model improvement via flux-matching, J. Hydrol., 575, 1308–1327, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.084, 2019. · DOI
  14. Fleischmann, A. S., Paiva, R. C. D., Collischonn, W., Siqueira, V. A., Paris, A., Moreira, D. M., Papa, F., Bitar, A. A., Parrens, M., Aires, F., and Garambois, P. A.: Trade-offs between 1-D and 2-D regional river hydrodynamic models, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2019WR026812, 10.1029/2019WR026812, 2020. · DOI
  15. Garambois, P.-A., Roux, H., Larnier, K., Labat, D., and Dartus, D.: Parameter regionalization for a process-oriented distributed model dedicated to flash floods, J. Hydrol., 525, 383–399, 2015. · DOI
  16. Garambois, P.-A., Calmant, S., Roux, H., Paris, A., Monnier, J., Finaud-Guyot, P., Samine Montazem, A., and Santos da Silva, J.: Hydraulic visibility: using satellite altimetry to parameterize a hydraulic model of an ungauged reach of a braided river, Hydrol. Process., 31, 756–767, 10.1002/hyp.11033, 2017. · DOI
  17. Hascoet, L. and Pascual, V.: The Tapenade automatic differentiation tool: principles, model, and specification, ACM T. Math Software, 39, 1–43, 2013. · DOI
  18. Hashemi, R., Brigode, P., Garambois, P.-A., and Javelle, P.: How can we benefit from regime information to make more effective use of long short-term memory (LSTM) runoff models?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5793–5816, 10.5194/hess-26-5793-2022, 2022. · DOI
  19. He, Q., Barajas-Solano, D., Tartakovsky, G., and Tartakovsky, A. M.: Physics-informed neural networks for multiphysics data assimilation with application to subsurface transport, Adv. Water Resour., 141, 103610, 10.1016/j.advwatres.2020.103610, 2020. · DOI
  20. Höge, M., Scheidegger, A., Baity-Jesi, M., Albert, C., and Fenicia, F.: Improving hydrologic models for predictions and process understanding using neural ODEs, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5085–5102, 10.5194/hess-26-5085-2022, 2022. · DOI
  21. Huynh, N. N. T., Garambois, P.-A., Colleoni, F., and Javelle, P.: Signatures-and-sensitivity-based multi-criteria variational calibration for distributed hydrological modeling applied to Mediterranean floods, J. Hydrol., 625, 129992, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129992, 2023. · DOI
  22. Huynh, N. N. T., Garambois, P.-A., Colleoni, F., Renard, B., Monnier, J., and Roux, H.: Multiscale learnable physical modeling and data assimilation framework: application to high-resolution regionalized hydrological simulation of flash flood, Authorea [preprint], 1–26, 10.22541/au.170709054.44271526/v2, 2024a. · DOI
  23. Huynh, N. N. T., Garambois, P.-A., Colleoni, F., Renard, B., Roux, H., Demargne, J., Jay-Allemand, M., and Javelle, P.: Learning regionalization using accurate spatial cost gradients within a differentiable high-resolution hydrological model: application to the French Mediterranean region, Water Resour. Res., 60, e2024WR037544, 10.1029/2024WR037544, 2024b. · DOI
  24. Jiang, S., Zheng, Y., and Solomatine, D.: Improving AI system awareness of geoscience knowledge: symbiotic integration of physical approaches and deep learning, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL088229, 10.1029/2020GL088229, 2020. · DOI
  25. Kingma, D. P. and Ba, J.: Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, arXiv [preprint], 10.48550/arXiv.1412.6980 2014. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Konapala, G., Kao, S.-C., Painter, S. L., and Lu, D.: Machine learning assisted hybrid models can improve streamflow simulation in diverse catchments across the conterminous US, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 104022, 10.1088/1748-9326/aba927, 2020. · DOI
  27. Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Brenner, C., Schulz, K., and Herrnegger, M.: Rainfall–runoff modelling using Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 6005–6022, 10.5194/hess-22-6005-2018, 2018. · DOI
  28. Kratzert, F., Nearing, G., Addor, N., Erickson, T., Gauch, M., Gilon, O., Gudmundsson, L., Hassidim, A., Klotz, D., Nevo, S., Shalev, G., and Matias, Y.: Caravan – a global community dataset for large-sample hydrology, Scientific Data, 10, 61, 10.1038/s41597-023-01975-w, 2023. · DOI
  29. Kumanlioglu, A. A. and Fistikoglu, O.: Performance enhancement of a conceptual hydrological model by integrating artificial intelligence, J. Hydrol. Eng., 24, 04019047, 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001850, 2019. · DOI
  30. Larnier, K., Garambois, P.-A., Emery, C., Pujol, L., Monnier, J., Gal, L., Paris, A., Yesou, H., Ledauphin, T., and Calmant, S.: Estimating Channel Parameters and Discharge at River Network Scale Using Hydrological-Hydraulic Models, SWOT and Multi-Satellite Data, Water Resour. Res., 61, e2024WR038455, 10.1029/2024WR038455, 2025. · DOI
  31. Li, B., Sun, T., Tian, F., Tudaji, M., Qin, L., and Ni, G.: Hybrid hydrological modeling for large alpine basins: a semi-distributed approach, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4521–4538, 10.5194/hess-28-4521-2024, 2024. · DOI
  32. Liu, Y. and Gupta, H. V.: Uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: toward an integrated data assimilation framework, Water Resour. Res., 43, W07401, 10.1029/2006WR005756, 2007. · DOI
  33. Maier, H. R. and Dandy, G. C.: Neural networks for the prediction and forecasting of water resources variables: a review of modelling issues and applications, Environ. Modell. Softw., 15, 101–124, 10.1016/S1364-8152(99)00007-9, 2000. · DOI
  34. Malou, T., Garambois, P.-A., Paris, A., Monnier, J., and Larnier, K.: Generation and analysis of stage-fall-discharge laws from coupled hydrological-hydraulic river network model integrating sparse multi-satellite data, J. Hydrol., 603, 126993, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126993, 2021. · DOI
  35. Meyer Oliveira, A., Fleischmann, A. S., and Paiva, R. C. D.: On the contribution of remote sensing-based calibration to model hydrological and hydraulic processes in tropical regions, J. Hydrol., 597, 126184, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126184, 2021. · DOI
  36. Nearing, G. S., Kratzert, F., Sampson, A. K., Pelissier, C. S., Klotz, D., Frame, J. M., Prieto, C., and Gupta, H. V.: What role does hydrological science play in the age of machine learning?, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR028091, 10.1029/2020WR028091, 2021. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Odry, J.: Prédétermination des débits de crues extrêmes en sites non jaugés : régionalisation de la méthode par simulation SHYREG, PhD thesis, Géosciences de l’environnement, Hydrologie Aix-Marseille 2017, http://www.theses.fr/2017AIXM0424 (last access: 1 August 2025), 2017.
  38. Organde, D., Arnaud, P., Fine, J.-A., Fouchier, C., Folton, N., and Lavabre, J.: Régionalisation d'une méthode de prédétermination de crue sur l'ensemble du territoire français: la méthode SHYREG, Revue des Sciences de l'Eau, 26, 65–78, 2013. · DOI
  39. Oudin, L., Hervieu, F., Michel, C., Perrin, C., Andréassian, V., Anctil, F., and Loumagne, C.: Which potential evapotranspiration input for a lumped rainfall–runoff model?: Part 2 Towards a simple and efficient potential evapotranspiration model for rainfall–runoff modelling, J. Hydrol., 303, 290–306, 2005. · DOI
  40. Oudin, L., Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., Michel, C., and Le Moine, N.: Spatial proximity, physical similarity, regression and ungaged catchments: a comparison of regionalization approaches based on 913 French catchments, Water Resour. Res., 44, W03413, 10.1029/2007WR006240, 2008. · DOI
  41. Papamarkou, T., Hinkle, J., Young, M. T., and Womble, D.: Challenges in Markov chain Monte Carlo for Bayesian neural networks, Stat. Sci., 37, 425–442, 10.1214/21-STS840, 2022. · DOI
  42. Perrin, C., Michel, C., and Andrèassian, V.: Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow simulation, J. Hydrol., 279, 275–289, 2003. · DOI
  43. Poncelet, C.: Du bassin au paramètre : jusqu'où peut-on régionaliser un modèle hydrologique conceptuel ?, PhD thesis, Hydrologie Paris 6 2016, http://www.theses.fr/2016PA066550 (last access: 1 August 2025), 2016.
  44. Pujol, L., Garambois, P.-A., Finaud-Guyot, P., Monnier, J., Larnier, K., Mosé, R., Biancamaria, S., Yesou, H., Moreira, D., Paris, A., and Calmant, S.: Estimation of multiple inflows and effective channel by assimilation of multi-satellite hydraulic signatures: The ungauged anabranching Negro river, J. Hydrol., 591, 125331, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125331, 2020. · DOI
  45. Pujol, L., Garambois, P.-A., and Monnier, J.: Multi-dimensional hydrological-hydraulic model with variational data assimilation for river networks and floodplains, EGUsphere [preprint], 10.5194/egusphere-2022-10, 2022. · DOI
  46. Quintana-Seguí, P., Le Moigne, P., Durand, Y., Martin, E., Habets, F., Baillon, M., Canellas, C., Franchisteguy, L., and Morel, S.: Analysis of near-surface atmospheric variables: validation of the SAFRAN analysis over France, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 47, 92, 10.1175/2007JAMC1636.1, 2008. · DOI
  47. Rackauckas, C., Ma, Y., Martensen, J., Warner, C., Zubov, K., Supekar, R., Skinner, D., Ramadhan, A., and Edelman, A.: Universal Differential Equations for Scientific Machine Learning, arXiv [preprint], 10.48550/arXiv.2001.04385, 2021. · DOI
  48. Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., and Karniadakis, G.: Physics-informed neural networks: a deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations, J. Comput. Phys., 378, 686–707, 10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045, 2019. · DOI · Paper page
  49. Roux, H., Labat, D., Garambois, P.-A., Maubourguet, M.-M., Chorda, J., and Dartus, D.: A physically-based parsimonious hydrological model for flash floods in Mediterranean catchments, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 2567–2582, 10.5194/nhess-11-2567-2011, 2011. · DOI
  50. Roy, A., Kasiviswanathan, K. S., Patidar, S., Adeloye, A. J., Soundharajan, B.-S., and Ojha, C. S. P.: A novel physics-aware machine learning-based dynamic error correction model for improving streamflow forecast accuracy, Water Resour. Res., 59, e2022WR033318, 10.1029/2022WR033318, 2023. · DOI
  51. Santos, L., Thirel, G., and Perrin, C.: Continuous state-space representation of a bucket-type rainfall-runoff model: a case study with the GR4 model using state-space GR4 (version 1.0), Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1591–1605, 10.5194/gmd-11-1591-2018, 2018. · DOI
  52. Shen, C. and Lawson, K.: Applications of Deep Learning in Hydrology, chap. 19, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, 10.1002/9781119646181.ch19, 283–297, 2021. · DOI
  53. Shi, X., Chen, Z., Wang, H., Yeung, D.-Y., Wong, W.-k., and Woo, W.-c.: Convolutional LSTM Network: a machine learning approach for precipitation nowcasting, in: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems – Volume 1, NIPS'15, Montreal, Canada, 7–12 December 2015, 802–810, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2969239.2969329 (last access: 1 August 2025), 2015. · DOI
  54. Tran, V. N., Ivanov, V. Y., Xu, D., and Kim, J.: Closing in on hydrologic predictive accuracy: combining the strengths of high-fidelity and physics-agnostic models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 50, e2023GL104464, 10.1029/2023GL104464, 2023. · DOI
  55. Tripathy, K. P. and Mishra, A. K.: Deep learning in hydrology and water resources disciplines: concepts, methods, applications, and research directions, J. Hydrol., 628, 130458, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130458, 2024. · DOI
  56. Vergara, H., Kirstetter, P.-E., Gourley, J. J., Flamig, Z. L., Hong, Y., Arthur, A., and Kolar, R.: Estimating a-priori kinematic wave model parameters based on regionalization for flash flood forecasting in the Conterminous United States, J. Hydrol., 541, 421–433, 2016. · DOI
  57. Vidal, J.-P., Martin, E., Franchistéguy, L., Baillon, M., and Soubeyroux, J.-M.: A 50-year high-resolution atmospheric reanalysis over France with the Safran system, Int. J. Climatol., 30, 1627–1644, 10.1002/joc.2003, 2010. · DOI
  58. Wang, C., Jiang, S., Zheng, Y., Han, F., Kumar, R., Rakovec, O., and Li, S.: Distributed hydrological modeling with physics-encoded deep learning: a general framework and its application in the Amazon, Water Resour. Res., 60, e2023WR036170, 10.1029/2023WR036170, 2024. · DOI
  59. Xu, T., Longyang, Q., Tyson, C., Zeng, R., and Neilson, B. T.: Hybrid physically based and deep learning modeling of a snow dominated, mountainous, karst watershed, Water Resour. Res., 58, e2021WR030993, 10.1029/2021WR030993, 2022. · DOI
  60. Yin, Y., Guen, V. L., Dona, J., de Bézenac, E., Ayed, I., Thome, N., and Gallinari, P.: Augmenting physical models with deep networks for complex dynamics forecasting, J. Stat. Mech.-Theory E., 2021, 124012, 10.1088/1742-5468/ac3ae5, 2021. · DOI
  61. Zhu, C., Byrd, R. H., Lu, P., and Nocedal, J.: Algorithm 778: L-BFGS-B: Fortran subroutines for large-scale bound-constrained optimization, ACM Trans. Math. Softw., 23, 550–560, 1997. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Huynh, N. N. T., Garambois, P.-A., Renard, B., Colleoni, F., Monnier, J., & Roux, H.
Affiliations
  • Aix-Marseille Université (FR)
  • Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Toulouse (FR)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
ORCID
Venue
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Published
2025-08-07
Volume
29
Issue
15
Pages
3589-3613
ISSN
  • 1027-5606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1607-7938
DOI
10.5194/hess-29-3589-2025
OpenAlex
W4413266363
Cited by
38
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 11
FWCI
9.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Hydrology and earth system sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-21-CE04-0021-01)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Hydrological Forecasting Using AI
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Flood Risk Assessment and Management
Keywords
distributed hydrological model, kinematic wave routing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review