Urban water demand forecasting and uncertainty assessment using ensemble wavelet-bootstrap-neural network models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[1] A new hybrid wavelet-bootstrap-neural network (WBNN) model is proposed in this study for short term (1, 3, and 5 day; 1 and 2 week; and 1 and 2 month) urban water demand forecasting. The new method was tested using data from the city of Montreal in Canada. The performance of the WBNN method was compared with the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) and autoregressive integrated moving average model with exogenous input variables (ARIMAX), traditional NNs, wavelet analysis-based NNs (WNN), bootstrap-based NNs (BNN), and a simple naive persistence index model. The WBNN model was developed as an ensemble of several NNs built using bootstrap resamples of wavelet subtime series instead of raw data sets. The results demonstrated that the hybrid WBNN and WNN models produced significantly more accurate forecasting results than the traditional NN, BNN, ARIMA, and ARIMAX models. It was also found that the WBNN model reduces the uncertainty associated with the forecasts, and the performance of WBNN forecasted confidence bands was found to be more accurate and reliable than BNN forecasted confidence bands. It was found in this study that maximum temperature and total precipitation improved the accuracy of water demand forecasts using wavelet analysis. The performance of WBNN models was also compared for different numbers of bootstrap resamples (i.e., 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500) and it was found that WBNN models produced optimum results with different numbers of bootstrap resamples for different lead time forecasts with considerable variability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".