CNN vs. LSTM: A Comparative Study of Hourly Precipitation Intensity Prediction as a Key Factor in Flood Forecasting Frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate precipitation intensity forecasting is crucial for effective flood management and early warning systems. This study evaluates the performances of convolutional neural network (CNN) and long short-term memory (LSTM) models in predicting hourly precipitation intensity using data from Sainte Catherine de la Jacques Cartier station near Québec City. The models predict precipitation levels from one to six hours ahead, which are categorized into slight, moderate, heavy, and very heavy precipitation intensities. Our methodology involved gathering hourly precipitation data, defining input combinations for multistep ahead forecasting, and employing CNN and LSTM models. The performances of these models were assessed through qualitative and quantitative evaluations. The key findings reveal that the LSTM model excelled in the short-term (1HA to 2HA) and long-term (3HA to 6HA) forecasting, with higher R2 (up to 0.999) and NSE values (up to 0.999), while the CNN model was more computationally efficient, with lower AICc values (e.g., −16,041.1 for 1HA). The error analysis shows that the CNN demonstrated higher precision in the heavy and very heavy categories, with a lower relative error, whereas the LSTM performed better for the slight and moderate categories. The LSTM outperformed the CNN in minor- and high-intensity events, but the CNN exhibited a better performance for significant precipitation events with shorter lead times. Overall, both models were adequate, with the LSTM providing better accuracy for extended forecasts and the CNN offering efficiency for immediate predictions, highlighting their complementary roles in enhancing early warning systems and flood management strategies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".