Cluster-Based Hydrologic Prediction Using Genetic Algorithm-Trained Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most hydrological processes are nonlinear in nature. Although there have been many successful applications of artificial neural networks (ANNs) to capture these nonlinear relationships, there are cases when ANNs have not been able to predict flow extremes (low and high flows) accurately. In a more general sense, ANNs have not performed well when data are clustered. The objective of this study is to demonstrate the influence of clustering on neural network performance by constructing a cluster-based conjunction model based on clustering, neural networks, and genetic algorithm (GA). The performance of the GA-trained cluster-based model is compared to that of the Bayesian regularization back-propagation algorithm, the Levenberg–Marquatrdt algorithm, and a regular GA-trained ANN model. The cluster-based neural network model was tested on (1) chaotic time series data (the Henon map); (2) cross-correlated monthly streamflow data. Results from the study indicate that the cluster-based neural network model offers a promising alternative to its conventional counterparts in mapping fragmented input–output relationships. From threshold analysis it is found that the cluster-based neural network model was effective, compared to its counterparts, in capturing the dynamics of high flows. Improvement in clustering accuracy is shown to improve the performance of the cluster-based neural network model.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".