Daily Water Level Prediction of Zrebar Lake (Iran): A Comparison between M5P, Random Forest, Random Tree and Reduced Error Pruning Trees Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zrebar Lake is one of the largest freshwater lakes in Iran and it plays an important role in the ecosystem of the environment, while its desiccation has a negative impact on the surrounded ecosystem. Despite this, this lake provides an interesting recreation setting in terms of ecotourism. The prediction and forecasting of the water level of the lake through simple but practical methods can provide a reliable tool for future lake water resource management. In the present study, we predict the daily water level of Zrebar Lake in Iran through well-known decision tree-based algorithms, including the M5 pruned (M5P), random forest (RF), random tree (RT) and reduced error pruning tree (REPT). We used five different water input combinations to find the most effective one. For our modeling, we chose 70% of the dataset for training (from 2011 to 2015) and 30% for model evaluation (from 2015 to 2017). We evaluated the models’ performances using different quantitative (root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), coefficient of determination (R2), percent bias (PBIAS) and ratio of the root mean square error to the standard deviation of measured data (RSR)) and visual frameworks (Taylor diagram and box plot). Our results showed that water level with a one-day lag time had the highest effect on the result and, by increasing the lag time, its effect on the result was decreased. This result indicated that all the developed models had a good prediction capability, but the M5P model outperformed the others, followed by RF and RT equally and then REPT. Our results showed that these algorithms can predict water level accurately only with a one-day lag time in water level as an input and they are cost-effective tools for future predictions.
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".