Improving Discharge Predictions in Ungauged Basins: Harnessing the Power of Disaggregated Data Modeling and Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Current machine learning methods for discharge prediction often employ aggregated basin‐wide hydrometeorological data (lumped modeling) for parametric and non‐parametric training. This approach may overlook the spatial heterogeneity of river systems and their impact on discharge patterns. We hypothesize that integrating spatiotemporal hydrologic knowledge into the data modeling process (distributed/disaggregated modeling) can improve the performance of discharge prediction models. To test this hypothesis, we designed experiments comparing the performance of identical Long Short‐Term Memory Recurrent Neural Network (LSTM‐RNN) models forced with either lumped or distributed features. We gather meteorological forcing and static attributes for the Mackenzie basin in Canada‐ a large and unique basin. Importantly, discharge performance is assessed out‐of‐sample with k‐fold replication across gauges. Training LSTMs with disaggregated data significantly improved model accuracy. Specifically, there was a 9.6% increase in the mean Nash‐Sutcliffe Efficiency and a 4.6% increase in the mean Kling‐Gupta Efficiency, indicating a better agreement between predicted and actual observations in terms of mean, variability, and correlation. These experiments and results demonstrate the importance of integrating topologically guided geomorphologic and hydrologic information (distributed modeling) in data‐driven discharge predictions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".