Performance of Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS) in predicting runoff in mid-Himalayan micro-watersheds with limited data / Performances de régressions par splines multiples et adaptives (MARS) pour la prévision d'écoulement au sein de micro-bassins versants Himalayens d'altitudes intermédiaires avec peu de données
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Steep topography and land-use transformations in Himalayan watersheds have a major impact on hydrological characteristics and flow regimes, and greatly affect the perenniality and sustainability of water resources in the region. To identify the appropriate conservation measures in a watershed properly, and, in particular, to augment flow during lean periods, accurate estimation of streamflow is essential. Due to the complexity of rainfall—runoff relationships in hilly watersheds and non-availability of reliable data, process-based models have limited applicability. In this study, data-driven models, based upon the Multiple Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS) technique, were employed to predict streamflow (surface runoff, baseflow and total runoff) in three mid-Himalayan micro-watersheds. In addition, the effect of length of historical records on the performance of MARS models was critically evaluated. Though acceptable MARS models could be developed with a 2-year data set, their performance improved considerably with a 3-year data set. Various indicators of model performance, such as correlation coefficient, average deviation, average absolute deviation and modelling efficiency, showed significant improvement for simulation of surface runoff, baseflow and total flow. To further analyse the versatility and general applicability of the MARS approach, 2-year data sets were used to develop the model and test it on a third-year data set to assess its performance. The models simulated the surface runoff, baseflow and total flow reasonably well and can be reliably applied in ungauged small watersheds under identical agro-climatic settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".