Modelling point-of-consumption residual chlorine in humanitarian response: Can cost-sensitive learning improve probabilistic forecasts?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ensuring sufficient free residual chlorine (FRC) up to the time and place water is consumed in refugee settlements is essential for preventing the spread of waterborne illnesses. Water system operators need accurate forecasts of FRC during the household storage period. However, factors that drive FRC decay after water leaves the piped distribution system vary substantially, introducing significant uncertainty when modelling point-of-consumption FRC. Artificial neural network (ANN) ensemble forecasting systems (EFS) can account for this uncertainty by generating probabilistic forecasts of point-of-consumption FRC. ANNs are typically trained using symmetrical error metrics like mean squared error (MSE), but this leads to forecast underdispersion forecasts (the spread of the forecast is smaller than the spread of the observations). This study proposes to solve forecast underdispersion by training an ANN-EFS using cost functions that combine alternative metrics (Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency, Kling Gupta Efficiency, Index of Agreement) with cost-sensitive learning (inverse FRC weighting, class-based FRC weighting, inverse frequency weighting). The ANN-EFS trained with each cost function was evaluated using water quality data from refugee settlements in Bangladesh and Tanzania by comparing the percent capture, confidence interval reliability diagrams, rank histograms, and the continuous ranked probability. Training the ANN-EFS using the cost functions developed in this study produced up to a 70% improvement in forecast reliability and dispersion compared to the baseline cost function (MSE), with the best performance typically obtained by training the model using Kling-Gupta Efficiency and inverse frequency weighting. Our findings demonstrate that training the ANN-EFS using alternative metrics and cost-sensitive learning can improve the quality of forecasts of point-of-consumption FRC and better account for uncertainty in post-distribution chlorine decay. These techniques can enable humanitarian responders to ensure sufficient FRC more reliably at the point-of-consumption, thereby preventing the spread of waterborne illnesses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".