Fully nonlinear statistical and machine‐learning approaches for hydrological frequency estimation at ungauged sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The high complexity of hydrological systems has long been recognized. Despite the increasing number of statistical techniques that aim to estimate hydrological quantiles at ungauged sites, few approaches were designed to account for the possible nonlinear connections between hydrological variables and catchments characteristics. Recently, a number of nonlinear machine‐learning tools have received attention in regional frequency analysis (RFA) applications especially for estimation purposes. In this paper, the aim is to study nonlinearity‐related aspects in the RFA of hydrological variables using statistical and machine‐learning approaches. To this end, a variety of combinations of linear and nonlinear approaches are considered in the main RFA steps (delineation and estimation). Artificial neural networks (ANNs) and generalized additive models (GAMs) are combined to a nonlinear ANN‐based canonical correlation analysis (NLCCA) procedure to ensure an appropriate nonlinear modeling of the complex processes involved. A comparison is carried out between classical linear combinations (CCAs combined with linear regression (LR) model), semilinear combinations (e.g., NLCCA with LR) and fully nonlinear combinations (e.g., NLCCA with GAM). The considered models are applied to three different data sets located in North America. Results indicate that fully nonlinear models (in both RFA steps) are the most appropriate since they provide best performances and a more realistic description of the physical processes involved, even though they are relatively more complex than linear ones. On the other hand, semilinear models which consider nonlinearity either in the delineation or estimation steps showed little improvement over linear models. The linear approaches provided the lowest performances.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".