Interpolation vs. Extrapolation in Flood Forecasting: Exploring the Predictive Capability of Conceptual and Machine Learning Tools in Non-Stationary Scenarios
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Recently published literature has confirmed time and time again that machine learning (ML) algorithms (including LSTMs, GRUs, and Transformers) and conceptual lumped hydrological models (such as SAC-SMA and HBV) perform more reliably in hindcast and forecast flood prediction intercomparison experiments than more sophisticated high-resolution hydrological models. These provocative results have challenged decades of development of physics-based hydrological models for streamflow prediction, which seem more sensitive to the errors in forcing precipitation data, and the spatial description of landscape attributes. Thus, the long-standing promise that a better and more detailed understanding and description of hydrological processes would yield better predictions of streamflow fluctuations (including floods, droughts, etc.) is yet to be fulfilled. In a recently published study by our research group, we proposed and tested a methodology to benchmark ML algorithms using artificially generated data using physically-based hydrological models under very controlled conditions. Our approach combined the implementation of the hillslope-link distributed hydrological model (HLM) on a 4,500 km2 basin driven by precipitation fields created using the stochastic storm transposition (SST) framework. We demonstrated that ML algorithms could effectively identify the input-output relations between the average rainfall over a basin and streamflows (as time series) at multiple sub-basin outlets under very general conditions of space-time variability of flood-generating storm systems. This result matches the reported performance by ML algorithms under a great variety of conditions.We are extending our work to ask a new question: How reliable are trained ML algorithms and calibrated lumped hydrological models at predicting floods that have never been observed in the “historical” record? This question goes to the heart of what these black/grey-box and conceptual types of tools represent mathematically: a deterministic estimate for the input-output relationship between rainfall and streamflow. Therefore, when any of these black-box models predicts a flood there are two possible scenarios, 1) interpolation, which means that the hydrograph and peak flow being predicted are within the range of floods observed in the past, and 2) extrapolation, the case when the event being predicted is significantly larger than anything observed in the past. In this study, we will present the results of controlled experiments to investigate this question and show which class of algorithms are less susceptible to over or under-estimation when extrapolating beyond the range of the “historical record”. We will present results for hourly and daily prediction timescales. This investigation is very relevant in the current environment of climate change where the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere increases with every degree of warming leading to storms that seem to constantly break every record in terms of intensity, duration, and spatial coverage.
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 | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 ».