Multi-Timescale LSTM for Rainfall–Runoff Forecasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rainfall–runoff predictions are generally evaluated on reanalysis datasets such as the DayMet, Maurer, or NLDAS forcings in the CAMELS dataset. While useful for benchmarking, this does not fully reflect real-world applications. There, meteorological information is much coarser, and fine-grained predictions are at best available until the present. For any prediction of future discharge, we must rely on forecasts, which introduce an additional layer of uncertainty. Thus, the model inputs need to switch from past data to forecast data at some point, which raises several questions: How can we design models that support this transition? How can we design tests that evaluate the performance of the model? Aggravating the challenge, the past and future data products may include different variables or have different temporal resolutions. We demonstrate how to seamlessly integrate past and future meteorological data in one deep learning model, using the recently proposed Multi-Timescale LSTM (MTS-LSTM, [1]). MTS-LSTMs are based on LSTMs but can generate rainfall–runoff predictions at multiple timescales more efficiently. One MTS-LSTM consists of several LSTMs that are organized in a branched structure. Each LSTM branch processes a part of the input time series at a certain temporal resolution. Then it passes its states to the next LSTM branch—thus sharing information across branches. We generalize this layout to handovers across data products (rather than just timescales) through an additional branch. This way, we can integrate past and future data in one prediction pipeline, yielding more accurate predictions. [1] M. Gauch, F. Kratzert, D. Klotz, G. Nearing, J. Lin, and S. Hochreiter. “Rainfall–Runoff Prediction at Multiple Timescales with a Single Long Short-Term Memory Network.” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, in review, 2020.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".