MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4322020129 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-16974

From Hindcast to Forecast with Deep Learning Streamflow Models

2023· preprint· en· W4322020129 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Grey Nearing, Martin Gauch, Daniel Klotz, Frederik Kratzert, Asher Metzger, Guy Shalev, Shlomo Shenzis, Tadele Tekalign, Dana Weitzner, Oren Gilon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHindcastStreamflowComputer scienceFlood forecastingDeep learningArtificial intelligenceFlood mythAutoencoderMachine learningMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep learning has become the de facto standard for streamflow simulation. While there are examples of deep learning based streamflow forecast models (e.g., 1-5), the majority of the development and research has been done with hindcast models. The primary challenge in using deep learning models for forecasting (e.g., flood forecasting) is that the meteorological input data are drawn from different distributions in hindcast vs. forecast. The (relatively small) amount of research that has been done on deep learning streamflow forecasting has largely used an encoder-decoder approach to account for forecast distribution shifts. This is, for example, what Google’s operational flood forecasting model uses [4]. In this work we show that the encoder-decoder approach results in artifacts in forecast trajectories that are not detectable with standard hydrological metrics, but which can cause forecasts to have incorrect trends (e.g., rising when they should be falling and vice-versa). We solve this problem using regularized embeddings, which remove forecast artifacts without harming overall accuracy. Perhaps more importantly, input embeddings allow for training models on spatially and/or temporally incomplete meteorological inputs, meaning that a single model can be trained using input data that does not exist everywhere or does not exist during the entire training or forecast period. This allows models to learn from a significantly larger training data set, which is important for high-accuracy predictions. It also allows large (e.g., global) models to learn from local weather data. We demonstrate how and why this is critical for state-of-the-art global-scale streamflow forecasting. Franken, Tim, et al. An operational framework for data driven low flow forecasts in Flanders. No. EGU22-6191. Copernicus Meetings, 2022. Kao, I-Feng, et al. "Exploring a Long Short-Term Memory based Encoder-Decoder framework for multi-step-ahead flood forecasting." Journal of Hydrology 583 (2020): 124631. Liu, Darong, et al. "Streamflow prediction using deep learning neural network: case study of Yangtze River." IEEE access 8 (2020): 90069-90086. Nevo, Sella, et al. "Flood forecasting with machine learning models in an operational framework." Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 26.15 (2022): 4013-4032. Girihagama, Lakshika, et al. "Streamflow modelling and forecasting for Canadian watersheds using LSTM networks with attention mechanism." Neural Computing and Applications 34.22 (2022): 19995-20015.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→French-language works237,207→