Generalized versus non-generalized neural network model for multi-lead inflow forecasting at Aswan High Dam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Artificial neural networks (ANN) have been found efficient, particularly in problems where characteristics of the processes are stochastic and difficult to describe using explicit mathematical models. However, time series prediction based on ANN algorithms is fundamentally difficult and faces problems. One of the major shortcomings is the search for the optimal input pattern in order to enhance the forecasting capabilities for the output. The second challenge is the over-fitting problem during the training procedure and this occurs when ANN loses its generalization. In this research, autocorrelation and cross correlation analyses are suggested as a method for searching the optimal input pattern. On the other hand, two generalized methods namely, Regularized Neural Network (RNN) and Ensemble Neural Network (ENN) models are developed to overcome the drawbacks of classical ANN models. Using Generalized Neural Network (GNN) helped avoid over-fitting of training data which was observed as a limitation of classical ANN models. Real inflow data collected over the last 130 years at Lake Nasser was used to train, test and validate the proposed model. Results show that the proposed GNN model outperforms non-generalized neural network and conventional auto-regressive models and it could provide accurate inflow 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".