MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392833544 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-13400

Interpolation vs. Extrapolation in Flood Forecasting: Exploring the Predictive Capability of Conceptual and Machine Learning Tools in Non-Stationary Scenarios

2024· preprint· en· W4392833544 on OpenAlexaff
Ricardo Mantilla, Janet Barco, Faruk Gürbüz, Shaoping Xiao, David F. Muñoz, Kavindra Lewkebandara, Vimal Sharma

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood forecastingComputer scienceStreamflowExtrapolationHydrological modellingFlood mythStormData assimilationHindcastBenchmark (surveying)MeteorologyClimatologyMachine learningEnvironmental scienceDrainage basinGeologyMathematicsStatisticsCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently published literature has confirmed time and time again that machine learning (ML) algorithms (including LSTMs, GRUs, and Transformers) and conceptual lumped hydrological models (such as SAC-SMA and HBV) perform more reliably in hindcast and forecast flood prediction intercomparison experiments than more sophisticated high-resolution hydrological models. These provocative results have challenged decades of development of physics-based hydrological models for streamflow prediction, which seem more sensitive to the errors in forcing precipitation data, and the spatial description of landscape attributes. Thus, the long-standing promise that a better and more detailed understanding and description of hydrological processes would yield better predictions of streamflow fluctuations (including floods, droughts, etc.) is yet to be fulfilled. In a recently published study by our research group, we proposed and tested a methodology to benchmark ML algorithms using artificially generated data using physically-based hydrological models under very controlled conditions. Our approach combined the implementation of the hillslope-link distributed hydrological model (HLM) on a 4,500 km2 basin driven by precipitation fields created using the stochastic storm transposition (SST) framework. We demonstrated that ML algorithms could effectively identify the input-output relations between the average rainfall over a basin and streamflows (as time series) at multiple sub-basin outlets under very general conditions of space-time variability of flood-generating storm systems. This result matches the reported performance by ML algorithms under a great variety of conditions.We are extending our work to ask a new question: How reliable are trained ML algorithms and calibrated lumped hydrological models at predicting floods that have never been observed in the “historical” record? This question goes to the heart of what these black/grey-box and conceptual types of tools represent mathematically: a deterministic estimate for the input-output relationship between rainfall and streamflow. Therefore, when any of these black-box models predicts a flood there are two possible scenarios, 1) interpolation, which means that the hydrograph and peak flow being predicted are within the range of floods observed in the past, and 2) extrapolation, the case when the event being predicted is significantly larger than anything observed in the past. In this study, we will present the results of controlled experiments to investigate this question and show which class of algorithms are less susceptible to over or under-estimation when extrapolating beyond the range of the “historical record”. We will present results for hourly and daily prediction timescales. This investigation is very relevant in the current environment of climate change where the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere increases with every degree of warming leading to storms that seem to constantly break every record in terms of intensity, duration, and spatial coverage.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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