Explanation and Probabilistic Prediction of Hydrological Signatures with Statistical Boosting Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrological signatures, i.e., statistical features of streamflow time series, are used to characterize the hydrology of a region. A relevant problem is the prediction of hydrological signatures in ungauged regions using the attributes obtained from remote sensing measurements at ungauged and gauged regions together with estimated hydrological signatures from gauged regions. The relevant framework is formulated as a regression problem, where the attributes are the predictor variables and the hydrological signatures are the dependent variables. Here we aim to provide probabilistic predictions of hydrological signatures using statistical boosting in a regression setting. We predict 12 hydrological signatures using 28 attributes in 667 basins in the contiguous US. We provide formal assessment of probabilistic predictions using quantile scores. We also exploit the statistical boosting properties with respect to the interpretability of derived models. It is shown that probabilistic predictions at quantile levels 2.5% and 97.5% using linear models as base learners exhibit better performance compared to more flexible boosting models that use both linear models and stumps (i.e., one-level decision trees). On the contrary, boosting models that use both linear models and stumps perform better than boosting with linear models when used for point predictions. Moreover, it is shown that climatic indices and topographic characteristics are the most important attributes for predicting hydrological signatures.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".