Prediction of rainfall-runoff processes through black-box techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrological forecasting techniques have been dramatically developed today. However, traditional predicting methods confront difficulties due to the diverse applications in water resource and management with complex and non-linear rainfall-runoff relationships associated with it. This project focused on artificial neural network (ANN) model which attempts to process the data in manner of black-box-based models, providing more reliable but time-efficient estimates regarding rainfall-runoff information. Without considering all the influencing factors in the process of calibration, ANN provides a more systematic alternative to simulate behaviors of historical data and operate adaptively by its predictive capability. Therefore, ANN method has currently been achieved an improvement of accuracy and flexibility compared with existing traditional and linear regression methods. In this study, the historical data ranging from 1970 to 1985, extracted from Kootenay River Watershed at state of British Columbia in Canada, was used to assess the ability of ANN. The extracted data comprised daily precipitation, daily minimum and maximum temperature, daily sunlight radiation and daily runoff from three hydrometric stations and three meteorological stations located along Kootenay River. Levenberg-Marquardt Backpropagation (LMBP) was used as training algorithm in ANN model. In order to generate an optimum prediction, different numbers and combinations of data were used as inputs to maximize the efficiency of ANN model. Two evaluators, including coefficient of determination (R2) and mean squared error (MSE), were used to assess the performance of ANN model. This study indicated that ANN model was able to produce favorable outcomes and it was simple to be learnt and used in complex hydrological forecasting by using Graphical User Interface (GUI) provided in neural network toolbox of Matlab R2013a. The significance of daily runoff data was highlighted in this study while the daily precipitation data was unable to generate reasonable outputs with a value of R2 closing to 1. The results also showed that the more inputs parameters used would help in gaining more accurate outcomes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".