Experimental investigation of the predictive capabilities of data driven modeling techniques in hydrology - Part 2: Application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In this second part of the two-part paper, the data driven modeling (DDM) experiment, presented and explained in the first part, is implemented. Inputs for the five case studies (half-hourly actual evapotranspiration, daily peat soil moisture, daily till soil moisture, and two daily rainfall-runoff datasets) are identified, either based on previous studies or using the mutual information content. Twelve groups (realizations) were randomly generated from each dataset by randomly sampling without replacement from the original dataset. Neural networks (ANNs), genetic programming (GP), evolutionary polynomial regression (EPR), Support vector machines (SVM), M5 model trees (M5), K-nearest neighbors (K-nn), and multiple linear regression (MLR) techniques are implemented and applied to each of the 12 realizations of each case study. The predictive accuracy and uncertainties of the various techniques are assessed using multiple average overall error measures, scatter plots, frequency distribution of model residuals, and the deterioration rate of prediction performance during the testing phase. Gamma test is used as a guide to assist in selecting the appropriate modeling technique. Unlike two nonlinear soil moisture case studies, the results of the experiment conducted in this research study show that ANNs were a sub-optimal choice for the actual evapotranspiration and the two rainfall-runoff case studies. GP is the most successful technique due to its ability to adapt the model complexity to the modeled data. EPR performance could be close to GP with datasets that are more linear than nonlinear. SVM is sensitive to the kernel choice and if appropriately selected, the performance of SVM can improve. M5 performs very well with linear and semi linear data, which cover wide range of hydrological situations. In highly nonlinear case studies, ANNs, K-nn, and GP could be more successful than other modeling techniques. K-nn is also successful in linear situations, and it should not be ignored as a potential modeling technique for hydrological applications.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".