Predictive models for wastewater flow forecasting based on time series analysis and artificial neural network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wastewater flow forecasting is key for proper management of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). However, to predict the amount of incoming wastewater in WWTPs, wastewater engineers face challenges arising from numerous complexities and uncertainties, such as the nonlinear precipitation-runoff relationships in combined sewer systems, unpredictability due to aging infrastructure, and frequently inconsistent data quality. To address such challenges, a time series analysis model (i.e., the autoregressive integrated moving average, ARIMA) and an artificial neural network model (i.e., the multilayer perceptron neural network, MLPNN) were developed for predicting wastewater inflow. A case study of the Barrie Wastewater Treatment Facility in Barrie, Canada, was carried out to demonstrate the performance of the proposed models. Fifteen-minute flow data over a period of 1 year were collected, and the resampled daily flow data were used to train and validate the developed models. The model performances were examined using root mean square error, mean absolute percentage error, coefficient of determination, and Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency. The results indicate that both models provided reliable forecasts, while ARIMA showed a slightly better performance than MLPNN in this case study. The proposed models can provide useful decision support for the optimization and management of WWTPs.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".