Comparing Machine Learning and Decision Making Approaches to Forecast Long Lead Monthly Rainfall: The City of Vancouver, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating maximum possible rainfall is of great value for flood prediction and protection, particularly for regions, such as Canada, where urban and fluvial floods from extreme rainfalls have been known to be a major concern. In this study, a methodology is proposed to forecast real-time rainfall (with one month lead time) using different number of spatial inputs with different orders of lags. For this purpose, two types of models are used. The first one is a machine learning data driven-based model, which uses a set of hydrologic variables as inputs, and the second one is an empirical-statistical model that employs the multi-criteria decision analysis method for rainfall forecasting. The data driven model is built based on Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), while the developed multi-criteria decision analysis model uses Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) approach. A comprehensive set of spatially varying climate variables, including geopotential height, sea surface temperature, sea level pressure, humidity, temperature and pressure with different orders of lags is collected to form input vectors for the forecast models. Then, a feature selection method is employed to identify the most appropriate predictors. Two sets of results from the developed models, i.e., maximum daily rainfall in each month (RMAX) and cumulative value of rainfall for each month (RCU), are considered as the target variables for forecast purpose. The results from both modeling approaches are compared using a number of evaluation criteria such as Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE). The proposed models are applied for rainfall forecasting for a coastal area in Western Canada: Vancouver, British Columbia. Results indicate although data driven models such as ANNs work well for the simulation purpose, developed TOPSIS model considerably outperforms ANNs for the rainfall forecasting. ANNs show acceptable simulation performance during the calibration period (NSE up to 0.9) but they fail for the validation (NSE of 0.2) and forecasting (negative NSE). The TOPSIS method delivers better rainfall forecasting performance with the NSE of about 0.7. Moreover, the number of predictors that are used in the TOPSIS model are significantly less than those required by the ANNs to show an acceptable performance (7 against 47 for forecasting RCU and 6 against 32 for forecasting RMAX). Reliable and precise rainfall forecasting, with adequate lead time, benefits enhanced flood warning and decision making to reduce potential flood damages.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".