Comparison of machine learning methods for runoff forecasting in mountainous watersheds with limited data / Porównanie metod uczenia maszynowego do prognozowania spływu w zlewniach górskich na podstawie ograniczonych danych
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Runoff forecasting in mountainous regions with processed based models is often difficult and inaccurate due to the complexity of the rainfall-runoff relationships and difficulties involved in obtaining the required data. Machine learning models offer an alternative for runoff forecasting in these regions. This paper explores and compares two machine learning methods, support vector regression (SVR) and wavelet networks (WN) for daily runoff forecasting in the mountainous Sianji watershed located in the Himalayan region of India. The models were based on runoff, antecedent precipitation index, rainfall, and day of the year data collected over the three year period from July 1, 2001 and June 30, 2004. It was found that both the methods provided accurate results, with the best WN model slightly outperforming the best SVR model in accuracy. Both the WN and SVR methods should be tested in other mountainous watershed with limited data to further assess their suitability in 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".