Regression Tree Ensemble Rainfall–Runoff Forecasting Model and Its Application to Xiangxi River, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of an efficient and accurate hydrological forecasting model is essential for water management and flood control. In this study, the ensemble model was applied to predict the daily discharge; it not only could enhance the algorithm and improve the learning accuracy, but it was also the most effective representative model among various combinations of learning parameters. Using the survey data of Xingshan station in Xiangxi River, China, the suitability of the model was proven. The performance of the ensemble model was compared with the multiple linear regression model and the artificial neural network models. Furthermore, the length of the training samples and the peak value predictions were analyzed. The results showed that, firstly, the best effect of the discharge simulation model appeared in the ensemble model, while the simulation accuracy of the multiple linear regression model was lower than that of the artificial neural network model in some cases. Secondly, the prediction effect of the ensemble model for discharge was better than that of the single model to some extent, whereby the maximum absolute value of relative error was 8.11% using the ensemble model. A comprehensive analysis showed that the ensemble model was optimal. Furthermore, the ensemble model performed outstandingly in terms of hydrological forecasting. The ensemble model also provided theoretical support for hydrological forecasting and could be considered as an alternative to multiple linear regression models and artificial neural networks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".