Short-Term Hydrological Forecast Using Artificial Neural Network Models with Different Combinations and Spatial Representations of Hydrometeorological Inputs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In hydrological modelling, artificial neural network (ANN) models have been popular in the scientific community for at least two decades. The current paper focuses on short-term streamflow forecasting, 1 to 7 days ahead, using an ANN model in two northeastern American watersheds, the Androscoggin and Susquehanna. A virtual modelling environment is implemented, where data used to train and validate the ANN model were generated using a deterministic distributed model over 16 summers (2000–2015). To examine how input variables affect forecast accuracy, we compared streamflow forecasts from the ANN model using four different sets of inputs characterizing the watershed state—surface soil moisture, deep soil moisture, observed streamflow the day before the forecast, and surface soil moisture along with antecedent observed streamflow. We found that the best choice of inputs consists of combining surface soil moisture with observed streamflow for the two watersheds under study. Moreover, to examine how the spatial distribution of input variables affects forecast accuracy, we compared streamflow forecasts from the ANN using surface soil moisture at three spatial distributions—global, fully distributed, and single pixel-based—for the Androscoggin watershed. We show that model performance was similar for both the global and fully distributed representation of soil moisture; however, both models surpass the single pixel-based models. Future work includes evaluating the developed ANN model with real observations, quantified in situ or remotely sensed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".