Deep learning convolutional neural network in rainfall–runoff modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rainfall–runoff modelling is complicated due to numerous complex interactions and feedback in the water cycle among precipitation and evapotranspiration processes, and also geophysical characteristics. Consequently, the lack of geophysical characteristics such as soil properties leads to difficulties in developing physical and analytical models when traditional statistical methods cannot simulate rainfall–runoff accurately. Machine learning techniques with data-driven methods, which can capture the nonlinear relationship between prediction and predictors, have been rapidly developed in the last decades and have many applications in the field of water resources. This study attempts to develop a novel 1D convolutional neural network (CNN), a deep learning technique, with a ReLU activation function for rainfall–runoff modelling. The modelling paradigm includes applying two convolutional filters in parallel to separate time series, which allows for the fast processing of data and the exploitation of the correlation structure between the multivariate time series. The developed modelling framework is evaluated with measured data at Chau Doc and Can Tho hydro-meteorological stations in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. The proposed model results are compared with simulations of long short-term memory (LSTM) and traditional models. Both CNN and LSTM have better performance than the traditional models, and the statistical performance of the CNN model is slightly better than the LSTM results. We demonstrate that the convolutional network is suitable for regression-type problems and can effectively learn dependencies in and between the series without the need for a long historical time series, is a time-efficient and easy to implement alternative to recurrent-type networks and tends to outperform linear and recurrent models.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".