MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168508202 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-13303

Improving hydrological forecasts through temporal hierarchal reconciliation

2021· article· en· W3168508202 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohammad Sina Jahangir, John Quilty

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMean squared errorPrecipitationOrdinary least squaresMean absolute errorExponential smoothingStatisticsEnvironmental scienceMoving averageClimatologyEconometricsMeteorologyMathematicsComputer scienceGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrological forecasts at different horizons are often made using different models. These forecasts are usually temporally inconsistent (e.g., monthly forecasts may not sum to yearly forecasts), which may lead to misaligned or conflicting decisions. Temporal hierarchal reconciliation (or simply, hierarchical reconciliation) methods can be used for obtaining consistent forecasts at different horizons. However, their effectiveness in the field of hydrology has not yet been investigated. Thus, this research assesses hierarchal reconciliation for precipitation forecasting due to its high importance in hydrological applications (e.g., reservoir operations, irrigation, drought and flood forecasting). Original precipitation forecasts (ORF) were produced using three different models, including ‘automatic’ Exponential Time-Series Smoothing (ETS), Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), and Seasonal Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average (SARIMA). The forecasts were produced at six timescales, namely, monthly, 2-monthly, quarterly, 4-monthly, bi-annual, and annual, for 84 basins selected from the Canadian model parameter experiment (CANOPEX) dataset. Hierarchical reconciliation methods including Hierarchical Least Squares (HLS), Weighted Least Squares (WLS), and Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) along with the Bottom-Up (BU) method were applied to obtain consistent forecasts at all timescales. Generally, ETS and ANN showed the best and worst performance, respectively, according to a wide range of performance metrics (root mean square error (RMSE), normalized RMSE (nRMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), normalized MAE (nMAE), and Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency index (NSE)). The results indicated that hierarchal reconciliation has a dissimilar impact on the ORFs’ accuracy in different basins and timescales, improving the RMSE in some cases while decreasing it in others. Also, it was highlighted that for different forecast models, hierarchical reconciliation methods showed different levels of performance. According to the RMSE and MAE, the BU method outperformed the hierarchical methods for ETS forecasts, while for ANN and SARIMA forecasts, HLS and OLS improved the forecasts more substantially, respectively. The sensitivity of ORF to hierarchical reconciliation was assessed using the RMSE. It was shown that both accurate and inaccurate ORF could be improved through hierarchical reconciliation; in particular, the effectiveness of hierarchical reconciliation appears to be more dependent on the ORF accuracy than it is on the type of hierarchical reconciliation method. While in the present work, the effectiveness of hierarchical reconciliation for hydrological forecasting was assessed via data-driven models, the methodology can easily be extended to process-based or hybrid (process-based data-driven) models. Further, since hydrological forecasts at different timescales may have different levels of importance to water resources managers and/or policymakers, hierarchical reconciliation can be used to weight the different timescales according to the user’s preference/desired goals.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207