A Machine-Learning Framework for Modeling and Predicting Monthly Streamflow Time Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Having a complete hydrological time series is crucial for water-resources management and modeling. However, this can pose a challenge in data-scarce environments where data gaps are widespread. In such situations, recurring data gaps can lead to unfavorable outcomes such as loss of critical information, ineffective model calibration, inaccurate timing of peak flows, and biased statistical analysis in various applications. Despite its importance, predicting monthly streamflow can be a complex task due to its connection to random dynamics and uncertain phenomena, posing significant challenges. This study introduces an ensemble machine-learning regression framework for modeling and predicting monthly streamflow time series with a high degree of accuracy. The framework utilizes historical data from multiple monthly streamflow datasets in the same region to predict missing monthly streamflow data. The framework selects the best features from all available gap-free monthly streamflow time-series combinations and identifies the optimal model from a pool of 12 machine-learning models, including random forest regression, gradient boosting regression, and extra trees regressor, among others. The model selection is based on cross-validation train-and-test set scores, as well as the coefficient of determination. We conducted modeling on 26 monthly streamflow time series and found that the gradient boosting regressor with bagging regressor produced the highest accuracy in 7 of the 26 instances. Across all instances, the models using this method exhibited an overall accuracy range of 0.9737 to 0.9968. Additionally, the use of either a bagging regressor or an AdaBoost regressor improved both the tree-based and gradient-based models, resulting in these methods accounting for nearly 80% of the best models. Between January 1960 and December 2021, an average of 40% of the monthly streamflow data was missing for each of the 26 stations. Notably, two crucial stations located in the economically significant lower Athabasca Basin River in Alberta province, Canada, had approximately 70% of their monthly streamflow data missing. To address this issue, we employed our framework to accurately extend the missing data for all 26 stations. These accurate extensions also allow for further analysis, including grouping stations with similar monthly streamflow behavior using Pearson correlation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".