On the Value of River Network Information in Regional Frequency Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Regional frequency analysis (RFA) is widely used in the design of hydraulic structures at locations where streamflow records are not available. RFA estimates depend on the precise delineation of homogenous regions for accurate information transfer. This study proposes new physiographical variables based on river network features and tests their potential to improve the accuracy of hydrological feature estimates. Information about river network types is used both in the definition of homogenous regions and in the estimation process. Data from 105 river basins in arid and semiarid regions of the United States were used in our analysis. Artificial neural network ensemble models and canonical correlation analysis were used to produce flood quantile estimates, which were validated through tenfold cross and jackknife validations. We conducted analysis for model performance based on statistical indices, such as the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency, root-mean-square error, relative root-mean-square error, mean absolute error, and relative mean bias. Among various combinations of variables, a model with 10 variables produced the best performance. Further, 49, 36, and 20 river networks in the 105 basins were classified as dendritic, pinnate, and trellis networks, respectively. The model with river network classification for the homogenous regions appeared to provide a superior performance compared with a model without such classification. The results indicated that including our proposed combination of variables could improve the accuracy of RFA flood estimates with the classification of the network types. This finding has considerable implications for hydraulic structure design.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".