Data Assimilation for Streamflow Forecasting Using Extreme Learning Machines and Multilayer Perceptrons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Data assimilation allows for updating state variables in a model to represent the initial condition of a catchment more accurately than the initial OpenLoop simulation. In hydrology, data assimilation is often a prerequisite for forecasting. According to Hornik (1991, https://doi.org/10.1016/0893-6080(91)90009-T ) artificial neural networks can learn any nonlinear relationship between inputs and outputs. Here, we hypothesize that neural networks could learn the relationship between the simulated streamflow (from a hydrological model) and the corresponding state variables. Once learned, this relationship can be used to obtain corrected state variables by applying it to observed rather than simulated streamflow. Based on this, we propose a novel, ensemble‐based, data assimilation approach. As a proof of concept and to verify the abovementioned hypothesis, we used an international testbed comprising four hydrologically dissimilar catchments. We applied the new data assimilation method to the lumped hydrological model GR4J, which has two state variables. Within this framework, we compared two types of neural networks, namely, Extreme Learning Machine and the Multilayer Perceptron. Using well‐known metrics such as the continuous ranked probability score, we compared the assimilated streamflow series with the OpenLoop streamflow series and with the observed streamflow. We show that neural networks can be successfully used for data assimilation, with a noticeable improvement over the OpenLoop simulation for all catchments.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".