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 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
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