MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167890350 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-1644

Improving Deep Learning hydrological time series modeling using Gaussian Filter preprocessing

2021· article· en· W3167890350 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeries (stratigraphy)Time seriesStreamflowComputer scienceFilter (signal processing)PreprocessorAutoregressive integrated moving averageAutoregressive modelArtificial intelligenceNoise (video)Machine learningStatisticsGeographyMathematicsCartographyGeologyDrainage basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Hydrological time series modeling is an important task in water resources planning and management. However, time series may include noise, which can result in an inaccurate model. Therefore, removing noise from time series is valuable to obtain accurate predictions. The aims of this study are i) to develop and compare Long-Short Term Memory (LSTM) and Gated Recurring Units (GRU) Deep Learning (DL) models to predict hydrological time series and ii) to integrate a preprocessing method, Gaussian Filter (GF), to smooth out time series and couple it with DL to improve prediction accuracy. Moreover, the DL models are benchmarked against statistical time series models (e.g., Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (SARIMA)) to assess their added value for hydrological time series modeling. To establish predictive models, several monthly hydrological time series including water level (e.g., from the Great Lakes in North America, including Lakes Michigan, Ontario, and Erie (1918-2019)) and streamflow (e.g., gauging stations at Umfreville, along the English River, Ontario, Canada (1921-2019), Rapides Fryers, along the Richelieu River, Quebec, Canada (1937-2020) and near Lethbridge, along the Oldman River, Alberta, Canada (1957-2019)) were explored. For developing non-GF- and GF-DL models, time series were partitioned into training (70% of the data) and testing (the remaining 30% of the data) subsets and the time series’ past measurements up to 12 months (t-1, t-2, ..., t-12) were served to the DL models (LSTM and GRU) to predict the time series at time t. The structure of the DL models was tuned using Bayesian optimization. The SARIMA models (i.e., non-GF- and GF-SARIMA) were also implemented and tuned using pmdarima's auto-arima function. After calibrating the models, the testing step was implemented and the performance of the models was evaluated using statistical indicators including correlation coefficient, root mean square error, mean absolute error, the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient, and Willmot’s index. The results of the developed DL models showed that the GRU outperforms the LSTM models. Moreover, both LSTM and GRU have superior performance when compared to the SARIMA models. It is observed that GF preprocessing significantly improves the accuracy of the developed DL and SARIMA models. It is concluded that coupling GF preprocessing with DL, due to capturing both linear and nonlinear features of the time series, represents a promising tool for obtaining accurate hydrological time series predictions.</p>

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207