Comparison of multiple linear and nonlinear regression, autoregressive integrated moving average, artificial neural network, and wavelet artificial neural network methods for urban water demand forecasting in Montreal, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daily water demand forecasts are an important component of cost‐effective and sustainable management and optimization of urban water supply systems. In this study, a method based on coupling discrete wavelet transforms (WA) and artificial neural networks (ANNs) for urban water demand forecasting applications is proposed and tested. Multiple linear regression (MLR), multiple nonlinear regression (MNLR), autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA), ANN and WA‐ANN models for urban water demand forecasting at lead times of one day for the summer months (May to August) were developed, and their relative performance was compared using the coefficient of determination, root mean square error, relative root mean square error, and efficiency index. The key variables used to develop and validate the models were daily total precipitation, daily maximum temperature, and daily water demand data from 2001 to 2009 in the city of Montreal, Canada. The WA‐ANN models were found to provide more accurate urban water demand forecasts than the MLR, MNLR, ARIMA, and ANN models. The results of this study indicate that coupled wavelet‐neural network models are a potentially promising new method of urban water demand forecasting that merit further study.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".