Technical Note: The divide and measure nonconformity – how metrics can mislead when we evaluate on different data partitions
-
Published:2024-08-13
Issue:15
Volume:28
Page:3665-3673
-
ISSN:1607-7938
-
Container-title:Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
Author:
Klotz DanielORCID, Gauch MartinORCID, Kratzert FrederikORCID, Nearing Grey, Zscheischler JakobORCID
Abstract
Abstract. The evaluation of model performance is an essential part of hydrological modeling. However, leveraging the full information that performance criteria provide requires a deep understanding of their properties. This Technical Note focuses on a rather counterintuitive aspect of the perhaps most widely used hydrological metric, the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE). Specifically, we demonstrate that the overall NSE of a dataset is not bounded by the NSEs of all its partitions. We term this phenomenon the “divide and measure nonconformity”. It follows naturally from the definition of the NSE, yet because modelers often subdivide datasets in a non-random way, the resulting behavior can have unintended consequences in practice. In this note we therefore discuss the implications of the divide and measure nonconformity, examine its empirical and theoretical properties, and provide recommendations for modelers to avoid drawing misleading conclusions.
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference36 articles.
1. Addor, N., Newman, A. J., Mizukami, N., and Clark, M. P.: The CAMELS data set: catchment attributes and meteorology for large-sample studies, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 5293–5313, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5293-2017, 2017. a, b 2. Beven, K.: Benchmarking hydrological models for an uncertain future, Hydrol. Process., 37, e14882, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14882, 2023. a 3. Clark, M. P., Vogel, R. M., Lamontagne, J. R., Mizukami, N., Knoben, W. J., Tang, G., Gharari, S., Freer, J. E., Whitfield, P. H., Shook, K. R., and Papalexiou, S. M.: The abuse of popular performance metrics in hydrologic modeling, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR029001, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR029001, 2021. a, b, c, d, e, f 4. Duc, L. and Sawada, Y.: A signal-processing-based interpretation of the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1827–1839, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1827-2023, 2023. a 5. Feng, D., Beck, H., Lawson, K., and Shen, C.: The suitability of differentiable, physics-informed machine learning hydrologic models for ungauged regions and climate change impact assessment, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2357–2373, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2357-2023, 2023. a
|
|