Positioning ML Models for Spatial and Temporal Modeling of River Flows Through Causality and Information Content Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of artifical intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) approaches in various scientific and engineering disciplines has grown exponentially over recent years. This upsurge also includes applications of physics-guided ML models and explainable AI. However, in addition to the dificulties involved in the identification of relevant model inputs, the advantages, contributions, and credibility of ML models are still open challenges, especially when these models are evaluated against the perceptual hydrologic understanding of the system in question. In this study, we aim to investigate some of these challenges using the case of seasonal streamflow forecasting with lead times up to three months in several hydrologically challenging river basins of prairie provinces of Canada (i.e., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba).Multiple ML techniques, including Random Forest (RF) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) models, are used to produce ensemble forecasts for 135 sub-basins of the Nelson-Churchill River Basin, comprising the vast area from the Rocky mountains up to the Hudson Bay, with the monthly temporal resolution and spatial scales of the order of 200 km2 to ~1.0 x106 km2, as reflected by drainage areas of all sub-basins. A large set of potential inputs (105 predictors) is used in this study. These potential inputs include hydrometeorological variables derived from the Daymet database, Environment and Climate Change Canada’s hydrometric network, and hydrometeorological forecasts from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, and various static attributes of all sub-basins.The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (CC) and Partial Mutual Information (PMI) were used, as model agnostic methods, to analyze the set of potential predictors and identify the most appropriate inputs for seasonal flow forecasting, prior to ML model development. Subsequently, modeling experiments were designed to investigate the ML model performance and test the usefulness of CC and PMI based techniques on modeling results. The model-agnostic and model-dependent findings were compared and analyzed in light of the perceptual understanding of the hydrological system. Furthermore, the Convergent Cross-Mapping (CCM) method was used with selected variables to further explore the causal, rather than correlational, relationships and interpret the results with the aim of developing ethical and responsible ML (ERML) models. We define ERML models as data driven models that are transparent and hydrologically explainable.The preliminary results of this study indicate that PMI is quite effective in filtering some of the CC-based selections, which might form multiple equifinale sets of predictors. This step is critical for identifying the most relevant and necessary inputs. In spite of the coarse spatial and temporal resolutions, which complicate crisp hydrologic perceptions, the CCM method seems to support the selection of various input variables with hydrologic causality, strengthening the transparency and credibility of ML models.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".