Probabilistic and ensemble simulation approaches for input uncertainty quantification of artificial neural network hydrological models
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
Artificial neural network (ANN) has been demonstrated to be a promising modelling tool for the improved prediction/forecasting of hydrological variables. However, the quantification of uncertainty in ANN is a major issue, as high uncertainty would hinder the reliable application of these models. While several sources have been ascribed, the quantification of input uncertainty in ANN has received little attention. The reason is that each measured input quantity is likely to vary uniquely, which prevents quantification of a reliable prediction uncertainty. In this paper, an optimization method, which integrates probabilistic and ensemble simulation approaches, is proposed for the quantification of input uncertainty of ANN models. The proposed approach is demonstrated through rainfall-runoff modelling for the Leaf River watershed, USA. The results suggest that ignoring explicit quantification of input uncertainty leads to under/over estimation of model prediction uncertainty. It also facilitates identification of appropriate model parameters for better characterizing the hydrological processes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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