Improving reliability of river flow forecasting using neural networks, wavelets and self-organising maps
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural network (NN) models have gained much attention for river flow forecasting because of their ability to map complex non-linearities. However, the selection of appropriate length of training datasets is crucial and the uncertainty in predictions of the trained NNs with new datasets is a crucial problem. In this study, self-organising maps (SOM) are used to classify the datasets homogeneously and the performance of four types of NN models developed for daily discharge predictions – namely traditional NN, wavelet-based NN (WNN), bootstrap-based NN (BNN) and wavelet-bootstrap-based NN (WBNN) – is analysed for their applicability cluster-wise. SOM classified the training datasets into three clusters (i.e. cluster I, II and III) and the trained SOM is then used to assign testing datasets into these three clusters. Simulation studies show that the WBNN model performs better for the entire testing dataset as well as for values in clusters I and III; for cluster II the performance of BNN model is better compared with others for a 1-day lead time forecasting. Overall, it is found that the proposed methodology can enhance the accuracy and reliability of river flow forecasting.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it