Forecasting High-Flow Discharges in a Flashy Catchment Using Multiple Precipitation Estimates as Predictors in Machine Learning Models
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of machine learning (ML) for predicting high river flow events is gaining prominence and among its non-trivial design decisions is the definition of the quantitative precipitation estimate (QPE) product included in the input dataset. This study proposes and evaluates the use of multiple concurrent QPEs to improve the performance of a ML model towards the forecasting of the discharge in a flashy urban catchment. Multiple extreme learning machine (ELM) models were trained with distinct combinations of QPEs from radar, reanalysis, and gauge datasets. Their performance was then assessed in terms of goodness of fit and contingency analysis for the prediction of high flows. It was found that multi-QPEs models overperformed the best of its single-QPE counterparts, with gains in Kling-Gupta efficiency (KGE) values up to 4.76% and increase of precision in detecting high flows up to 7.27% for the lead times in which forecasts were considered “useful”. The novelty of these results suggests that the implementation of ML models could achieve better performance if the predictive features related to rainfall data were more diverse in terms of data sources when compared with the currently predominant use of a single QPE product.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it