Fluvial bedload transport modelling: advanced ensemble tree-based models or optimized deep learning algorithms?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The potential of advanced tree-based models and optimized deep learning algorithms to predict fluvial bedload transport was explored, identifying the most flexible and accurate algorithm, and the optimum set of readily available and reliable inputs. Using 926 datasets for 20 rivers, the performance of three groups of models was tested: (1) standalone tree-based models Alternating Model Tree (AMT) and Dual Perturb and Combine Tree (DPCT); (2) ensemble tree-based models Iterative Absolute Error Regression (IAER), ensembled with AMT and DPCT; and (3) optimized deep learning models Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) ensembled with Grey Wolf Optimizer. Comparison of the predictive performance of the models with that of commonly used empirical equations and sensitivity analysis of the driving variables revealed that: (i) the coarse grain-size percentile D90 was the most effective variable in bedload transport prediction (where Dx is the xth percentile of the bed surface grain size distribution), followed by D84, D50, flow discharge, D16, and channel slope and width; (ii) all tree-based models and optimized deep learning algorithms displayed ‘very good’ or ‘good’ performance, outperforming empirical equations; and (iii) all algorithms performed best when all input parameters were used. Thus, a range of different input variable combinations must be considered in the optimization of these models. Overall, ensemble algorithms provided more accurate predictions of bedload transport than their standalone counterpart. In particular, the ensemble tree-based model IAER-AMT performed most strongly, displaying great potential to produce robust predictions of bedload transport in coarse-grained rivers based on a few readily available flow and channel variables.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it