MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3105404441 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-845

Improved real-time SWMM flow forecasts using two machine learning approaches

2020· article· en· W3105404441 on OpenAlexaffabout
Everett Snieder, Arash Shahmansouri, Chi-Han Cheng, Yuanhao Ding, Edward M. Graham, Usman A. Khan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto and Region Conservation AuthorityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorm Water Management ModelGeospatial analysisComputer scienceCalibrationWatershedFlow (mathematics)MeteorologyEnvironmental scienceMachine learningStormwaterMathematicsStatisticsRemote sensingEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) is a popular and widely used physics-based numerical model for water resource management and flow forecasting. Calibrating SWMM requires a large amount of geospatial and hydro-meteorological data that may be hard to collect, has high uncertainty associated with it, and are often non-stationary. These issues are compounded when modelling large watersheds with several sub-catchments, leading to thousands of parameters that need to be calibrated collectively. The calibration process is time consuming (and often conducted manually), and results in models that are biased, only tuned to specific events, and lead to high uncertainty in the flow forecasts, and thus, limiting their utility. In this research, a two-stage machine-learning process is proposed to first calibrate a large-scale SWMM model using a genetic algorithm (GA), and second, to bias correct the flow forecast values using an artificial neural network (ANN) ensemble to improve real-time flow forecasts. A SWMM model for the 14 Mile Creek Watershed in Ontario, Canada is used as a case study for the proposed method. The model contains 60 sub-catchments with 10 parameters each, and a total of 1144 elements that require calibration. The model is driven by a suite of numerical weather models and precipitation estimates (including the Global Environmental Multiscale - Local Area Model, the North American Mesoscale Forecast System, and the Rapid Refresh and High Resolution Rapid Refresh models). These models have a lead time of up to 36 hours at an hourly resolution. A GA approach was implemented in MATLAB to calibrate the watershed for both single- and multi-event scenarios using a multi-criteria optimisation approach for a suite of model performance metrics (the Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency, peak flow difference, and relative error of the total runoff volume). Historical precipitation and flow data with an hourly time-step was used in the calibration procedure. Next, an ANN is trained using recent (i.e., 1 to 24 hour lag time) observed flow, SWMM forecast flow, and observed precipitation, to predict the SWMM bias (the difference between SWMM forecasts and flow observations). The estimated bias is used to correct the real-time SWMM forecasts which are driven by the precipitation forecasts. This bias correction procedure implicitly minimizes the collective error associated with the radar forecasts, the SWMM parameter uncertainty, and the SWMM epistemic uncertainty. Ensemble methods are employed within the ANN to quantify the uncertainty of the bias-corrected forecast flows. Preliminary results indicate that GA-based calibration improved the NSE from 0 to 0.75; however, some single event-based GA calibration did not maintain acceptable performance (NSE > 0.65) when cross-validated with other events. Bias corrected forecasts further improve the NSE to 0.9 for some events. A comparison between the uncalibrated, GA-calibrated, bias-corrected, and pure ANN forecasts are presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→French-language works237,207→