Case Study of the Chicago River Watershed: Physical Modeling vs Data-driven Modeling of an Urban Watershed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed a water quality model for the highly urbanized Chicago River watershed based on hydrologic simulation using BASINS/HSPF. Appropriate consideration was given to the effective impervious area (EIA). The 5 y water quality simulation resulted in finding total nitrates loadings at both point and nonpoint sources. However, it is always useful to have modeling alternatives to validate the simulation results of a physically based model with a data-driven one. Data-driven modeling has gained a lot of attention in recent decades in both hydrology and water resources research. While physically based models require the description of system inputs, physical laws and boundary and initial conditions, a data-driven model simply extracts knowledge from a large amount of data with only a limited number of assumptions about the physical behaviour of the system. For this case study, both data-driven and physical models were considered to simulate total nitrates. Comparing the performance of the two modeling approaches, the data-driven models show better performance. RMSE for regression models showed an increase in prediction performance of up to 10.7 %. Data-driven models require fewer inputs and can be deployed anywhere in the watershed, while physical models require extensive data inputs and can only be applied to the specific watershed outlets selected in the simulation.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".