Enhancing LSTM-based streamflow prediction with a spatially distributed approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Deep learning (DL) algorithms have previously demonstrated their effectiveness in streamflow prediction. However, in hydrological time series modelling, the performance of existing DL methods is often bound by limited spatial information, as these data-driven models are typically trained with lumped (spatially-aggregated) input data. In this study, we propose a hybrid approach, namely the Spatially Recursive (SR) model, that integrates a lumped long short-term memory (LSTM) network with a physics-based hydrological routing simulation for enhanced streamflow prediction. The lumped LSTM was trained on the basin-averaged meteorological and hydrological variables derived from 141 gauged basins located in the Great Lakes region of North America. The SR model involves applying the trained LSTM at the subbasin scale for local streamflow predictions which are then translated to the basin outlet by the hydrological routing model. We evaluated the efficacy of the SR model on predicting streamflow at 224 gauged stations across the Great Lakes region and compared its performance to that of the standalone lumped LSTM model. The results indicate that the SR model achieved performance levels on par with the lumped LSTM in basins used for training the LSTM. Additionally, the SR model was able to predict streamflow more accurately on large basins (e.g., drainage area greater than 1000 km2), underscoring the substantial information loss associated with basin-wise feature aggregation. Furthermore, the SR model outperformed the lumped LSTM when applied to basins that were not part of the LSTM training (i.e., pseudo-ungauged basins). The implication of this study is that the lumped LSTM predictions, especially in large basins and ungauged basins, can be reliably improved by considering spatial heterogeneity at finer resolution via the SR model.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".