MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229447720 · doi:10.1029/2021wr031862

Temporal Hierarchical Reconciliation for Consistent Water Resources Forecasting Across Multiple Timescales: An Application to Precipitation Forecasting

2022· article· en· W4229447720 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mohammad Sina Jahangir, John Quilty

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsExponential smoothingBenchmark (surveying)Computer sciencePrecipitationAutoregressive integrated moving averageEconometricsMoving averageArtificial neural networkScalingSmoothingClimatologyTime seriesEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyMachine learningMathematicsGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Obtaining consistent forecasts at different timescales is important for reliable decision‐making. This study introduces and evaluates the benefits of utilizing temporal hierarchical reconciliation methods for water resources forecasting, with an application to precipitation. Original (precipitation) Forecasts (ORFs) were produced using “automatic” Exponential Time‐Series Smoothing (ETS), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and Seasonal Auto‐Regressive Integrated Moving Average (SARIMA) models at six timescales, namely, monthly, 2‐monthly, quarterly, 4‐monthly, bi‐annual, and annual, for 84 basins extracted from the Canadian model parameter experiment. Temporal hierarchical reconciliation methods, including structural scaling‐based Weighted Least Squares (WLS), series variance scaling‐based WLS, and Ordinary Least Squares, along with the simple Bottom‐Up (BU) method, were applied to reconcile the forecasts. In general, ETS (direct forecasting) demonstrated better performance compared to ANN and SARIMA (recursive forecasting). The results confirmed that improvements in accuracy due to reconciliation is dependent on the basin, timescale, and the ORFs' accuracy. For different forecast models, the reconciliation methods showed different levels of performance. For ETS, BU was able to improve forecast accuracy to a greater extent than the temporal hierarchical reconciliation methods, while for ANN and SARIMA, forecast accuracy was improved through all temporal hierarchical reconciliation methods but not BU. The reconciled forecasts' accuracy was affected more by the ORFs' accuracy than by the reconciliation method. Different timescales showed dissimilar sensitivity to reconciliation. The presented results are anticipated to serve as a valuable benchmark for evaluating future developments in the promising area of temporal hierarchical reconciliation for water resources forecasting.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207