Role of a 'combination rule' in hybrid short-term prediction of hydrological events
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Data-driven hydrological predictions based on supervised classification have recently gained momentum.This technique supports the classification of waterbodies and flood events that occur at different watersheds, predictions of a class of a hydrological event, e.g., 'high-' or 'low-flow', as opposed to forecasting magnitudes of streamflow characteristics generated by ANNs, regression models or other modelling tools.Flood management teams declare a state of emergency and/or take mitigation measures based on a set of business rules reflecting water level exceedance of an established threshold.Therefore, predicting a class of a hydrological event, e.g.'flood' or 'no-flood', carries even more important information for operational flood managers than projected magnitudes of streamflow characteristics.When predictions of a class of an event are obtained based on data available in real-time, they can be easily deployed in flood management.Scientific literature has demonstrated the usefulness of various classification algorithms (inducers) in applied hydrology.The performance of these inducers, however, deviated notably on different data sets.To alleviate these deviations and generate forecasts with reduced generalization error, an ensemble of classifier can be constructed.One of the important steps in developing an ensemble of classifiers is identifying the approach to aggregate individual predictions into a final judgement.The current study investigates the effect of various weighting schemes on the accuracy of the generated forecasts of hydrological events.The predictors were developed using C4.5, CART, REPTree, NBTree, Ridor, JRip, and Random Forest inducers trained on data collected by stream and rain gauges located on a small highly urbanized watershed during two hydrologically distinct years.The data sets were first transformed into time series of various granularity from 15 minutes to 60 minutes.Time series of the same granularity and corresponding to the same year were converted to an augmented phase space providing datasets for training and testing developed predictors.Ensembles were constructed using five combination rules: majority vote, maximum probability, minimum probability, average probability, and product of probabilities.The ensemble's generalization error was estimated using two measures: recall and Fscore.Combining the results of predictors constructed via training of individual inducers allows to develop a more robust model generating reliable predictions.However, the estimates of the ensemble's generalization error vary up to 28% depending on the combination rule used to aggregate individual predictions into the final judgement.The issue of selecting a combination rule which is the most suitable for an application domain has both theoretical importance and practical significance.Computational experiments revealed that the classifier constructed with the minimum probability combination rule outperformed the others.It consistently delivered the most accurate results for all investigated data sets and all lead time intervals.The performance of classifiers utilizing the maximum probability rule on all data sets was the weakest, contrasting to its interpretation as a rule which identifies a classifier with the highest estimated confidence.Although the results of data-driven analysis are site-specific, they suggest further investigation of this rule, including theoretical considerations and application of the rule to data sets from other watersheds.Another combination rule which should not be easily discarded for the given problem domain, is the majority vote.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».