Application of artificial neural networks and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system models to short-term streamflow forecasting
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present article aims to forecast streamflow by using artificial neural networks (ANNs), adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), and autoregressive moving average (ARMA). For this purpose, the daily streamflow time series of two hydrometry stations of Hajighoshan and Tamar on Gorgan River are used for two periods of 1983–2007 and 1974–2007, respectively. Root mean square error (RMSE) and correlation coefficient (R) statistics are employed to evaluate the performance of the ANNs, ANFIS, and ARMA models for forecasting streamflow (1 day ahead). Comparison of the results reveals that the ANFIS model outperforms the ARMA model. Based on the results of validation stage, for the forecasting 1 day ahead streamflow, ANN with RMSE = 0.028 m 3 /s and R = 0.59 for the Hajighoshan station and RMSE = 0.013 m 3 /s and R = 0.44 for the Tamar station were found to be superior to the ANFIS with RMSE = 1.98 m 3 /s and R = 0.42 for the Hajighoshan station and RMSE = 2.18 m 3 /s and R = 0.22 for the Tamar station. In addition, for 2 day and 3 day ahead streamflow forecasts, the ANN models show superiority in the accuracy of forecasting streamflow compared with the ANFIS models.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it