Comparing three machine learning algorithms with existing methods for natural streamflow estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural streamflow data is required in many hydrological applications. However, many basins are located in data-scarce regions or are impacted by human construction and activities. In this paper, we explore three machine learning algorithms, namely artificial neural networks, random forest and light gradient boosting machine, to simultaneously estimate all the parameters of the coupled modèle du Génie Rural à 4 paramètres Journaliers (GR4J) and snow accounting routine called CemaNeige model. A database of 675 basins in the USA and Quebec is used to train and test ensembles. After using the estimated parameters in GR4J, the resulting naturalized streamflow series are compared with those obtained by the established drainage area ratio and spatial proximity transfer methods in 11 test basins. The results indicate that the machine learning algorithms outperform the drainage area ratio and spatial proximity transfer methods. Among machine learning algorithms, random forests obtain lower (better) continuous ranked probability scores than the other methods for 10 out of 11 test basins.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".