MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1627096583 · doi:10.1029/2005wr003971

Bayesian neural network for rainfall‐runoff modeling

2006· article· en· W1627096583 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mohammad Sajjad Khan, Paulin Coulibaly

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPosterior probabilityArtificial neural networkBayesian probabilityGaussianBayesian linear regressionConjugate priorPrior probabilityComputer scienceBayes' theoremBayesian hierarchical modelingBayesian networkBayesian experimental designStatisticsMathematicsBayesian inferenceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a Bayesian learning approach is introduced to train a multilayer feed‐forward network for daily river flow and reservoir inflow simulation in a cold region river basin in Canada. In Bayesian approach, uncertainty about the relationship between inputs and outputs is initially taken care of by an assumed prior distribution of parameters (weights and biases). This prior distribution is updated to posterior distribution using a likelihood function following Bayes' theorem while data are observed. This posterior distribution is called the objective function of a network in the Bayesian learning approach. The objective function is maximized using a suitable optimization technique. Once the network is trained, the predictive distribution of the network outputs is obtained by integrating over the posterior distribution of weights. In this study, Gaussian prior distribution and a Gaussian noise model are used in defining posterior distribution. The network has been optimized using a scaled conjugate gradient technique. Posterior distribution of weights is approximated to Gaussian during prediction. Prediction performance of the Bayesian neural network (BNN) is compared with the results obtained from a standard artificial neural network (ANN) model and a widely used conceptual rainfall‐runoff model, namely, HBV‐96. The BNN model outperformed the conceptual model and slightly outperformed the standard ANN model in simulating mean, peak, and low river flows and reservoir inflows. The significant contribution of the Bayesian method over the conventional ANN approach, among others, is the uncertainty estimation of the outputs in the form of confidence intervals which are particularly needed in practical water resources applications. Prediction confidence limits (or intervals) indicate the extent to which one can rely on predictions for decision making. It is shown that the BNN can provide reliable streamflow and reservoir inflow forecasts without a loss in model prediction accuracy as compared to standard ANN and conceptual model HBV. Another significant advantage of BNN approach is that the overfitting and underfitting problems are automatically taken care of by the Bayesian learning algorithm, which conversely remain serious problems with conventional ANN learning algorithm.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations154
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207