Ensemble machine learning using hydrometeorological information to improve modeling of quality parameter of raw water supplying treatment plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Source and raw water quality may deteriorate due to rainfall and river flow events that occur in watersheds. The effects on raw water quality are normally detected in drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs) with a time-lag after these events in the watersheds. Early warning systems (EWSs) in DWTPs require models with high accuracy in order to anticipate changes in raw water quality parameters. Ensemble machine learning (EML) techniques have recently been used for water quality modeling to improve accuracy and decrease variance in the outcomes. We used three decision-tree-based EML models (random forest [RF], gradient boosting [GB], and eXtreme Gradient Boosting [XGB]) to predict two critical parameters for DWTPs, raw water Turbidity and UV absorbance (UV254), using rainfall and river flow time series as predictors. When modeling raw water turbidity, the three EML models (rRF−Tu2=0.87, rGB−Tu2=0.80 and rXGB−Tu2=0.81) showed very good performance metrics. For raw water UV254, the three models (rRF−UV2=0.89, rGB−UV2=0.85 and rXGB−UV2=0.88) again showed very good performance metrics. Results from this study suggest that EML approaches could be used in EWSs to anticipate changes in the quality parameters of raw water and enhance decision-making in DWTPs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".