Dynamic versus static neural network model for rainfall forecasting at Klang River Basin, Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Rainfall is considered as one of the major components of the hydrological process; it takes significant part in evaluating drought and flooding events. Therefore, it is important to have an accurate model for rainfall forecasting. Recently, several data-driven modeling approaches have been investigated to perform such forecasting tasks as multi-layer perceptron neural networks (MLP-NN). In fact, the rainfall time series modeling involves an important temporal dimension. On the other hand, the classical MLP-NN is a static and has a memoryless network architecture that is effective for complex nonlinear static mapping. This research focuses on investigating the potential of introducing a neural network that could address the temporal relationships of the rainfall series. Two different static neural networks and one dynamic neural network, namely the multi-layer perceptron neural network (MLP-NN), radial basis function neural network (RBFNN) and input delay neural network (IDNN), respectively, have been examined in this study. Those models had been developed for the two time horizons for monthly and weekly rainfall forecasting at Klang River, Malaysia. Data collected over 12 yr (1997–2008) on a weekly basis and 22 yr (1987–2008) on a monthly basis were used to develop and examine the performance of the proposed models. Comprehensive comparison analyses were carried out to evaluate the performance of the proposed static and dynamic neural networks. Results showed that the MLP-NN neural network model is able to follow trends of the actual rainfall, however, not very accurately. RBFNN model achieved better accuracy than the MLP-NN model. Moreover, the forecasting accuracy of the IDNN model was better than that of static network during both training and testing stages, which proves a consistent level of accuracy with seen and unseen data.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".