MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024402844 · doi:10.5194/hess-25-2685-2021

A note on leveraging synergy in multiple meteorological data sets with deep learning for rainfall–runoff modeling

2021· article· en· W3024402844 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Frederik Kratzert, Daniel Klotz, Sepp Hochreiter, Grey Nearing

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology and earth system sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGlobal Water FuturesBundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und ForschungÖsterreichische ForschungsförderungsgesellschaftHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeNuclear Safety and Security CommissionJanssen PharmaceuticalsNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationAustrian Science FundEuropean CommissionNvidia
KeywordsHydrographSurface runoffPrecipitationForcing (mathematics)Computer scienceData assimilationSensitivity (control systems)Environmental scienceMeteorologySample (material)Data setClimatologyArtificial intelligenceGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A deep learning rainfall–runoff model can take multiple meteorological forcing products as input and learn to combine them in spatially and temporally dynamic ways. This is demonstrated with Long Short-Term Memory networks (LSTMs) trained over basins in the continental US, using the Catchment Attributes and Meteorological data set for Large Sample Studies (CAMELS). Using meteorological input from different data products (North American Land Data Assimilation System, NLDAS, Maurer, and Daymet) in a single LSTM significantly improved simulation accuracy relative to using only individual meteorological products. A sensitivity analysis showed that the LSTM combines precipitation products in different ways, depending on location, and also in different ways for the simulation of different parts of the hydrograph.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations132
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrology and earth system sciencesSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207