Fluvial bedload transport modelling: advanced ensemble tree-based models or optimized deep learning algorithms?
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".