An experiment on the evolution of an ensemble of neural networks for streamflow forecasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We present an experiment on fifty multilayer perceptrons trained for streamflow forecasting on three watersheds using bootstrapped input series. This type of neural network is common in hydrology and using multiple training repetitions (ensembling) is a popular practice: the information issued by the ensemble is then aggregated and considered to be the final output. Some authors proposed that the ensemble could serve the calculation of confidence intervals around the ensemble mean. In the following, we are interested in the reliability of confidence intervals obtained in such fashion and in tracking the evolution of the ensemble of neural networks during the training process. For each iteration of this process, the mean of the ensemble is computed along with various confidence intervals. The performance of the ensemble mean is evaluated based on the mean absolute error. Since the ensemble of neural networks resemble an ensemble streamflow forecast, we also use ensemble-specific quality assessment tools such as the Continuous Ranked Probability Score to quantify the forecasting performance of the ensemble formed by the neural networks repetitions. We show that while the performance of the single predictor formed by the ensemble mean improves throughout the training process, the reliability of the associated confidence intervals starts to decrease shortly after the initiation of this process. While there is no moment during the training where the reliability of the confidence intervals is perfect, we show that it is best after approximately 5 to 10 iterations, depending on the basin. We also show that the Continuous Ranked Probability Score and the logarithmic score do not evolve in the same fashion during the training, due to a particularity of the logarithmic score.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".