Toward improving the reliability of hydrologic prediction: Model structure uncertainty and its quantification using ensemble‐based genetic programming framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncertainty analysis is starting to be widely acknowledged as an integral part of hydrological modeling. The conventional treatment of uncertainty analysis in hydrologic modeling is to assume a deterministic model structure, and treat its associated parameters as imperfectly known, thereby neglecting the uncertainty associated with the model structure. In this paper, a modeling framework that can explicitly account for the effect of model structure uncertainty has been proposed. The modeling framework is based on initially generating different realizations of the original data set using a non‐parametric bootstrap method, and then exploiting the ability of the self‐organizing algorithms, namely genetic programming, to evolve their own model structure for each of the resampled data sets. The resulting ensemble of models is then used to quantify the uncertainty associated with the model structure. The performance of the proposed modeling framework is analyzed with regards to its ability in characterizing the evapotranspiration process at the Southwest Sand Storage facility, located near Ft. McMurray, Alberta. Eddy‐covariance‐measured actual evapotranspiration is modeled as a function of net radiation, air temperature, ground temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed. Investigating the relation between model complexity, prediction accuracy, and uncertainty, two sets of experiments were carried out by varying the level of mathematical operators that can be used to define the predictand‐predictor relationship. While the first set uses just the additive operators, the second set uses both the additive and the multiplicative operators to define the predictand‐predictor relationship. The results suggest that increasing the model complexity may lead to better prediction accuracy but at an expense of increasing uncertainty. Compared to the model parameter uncertainty, the relative contribution of model structure uncertainty to the predictive uncertainty of a model is shown to be more important. Furthermore, the study advocates that the search to find the optimal model could be replaced by the quest to unearth possible models for characterizing hydrological processes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".