Advancing Machine Learning-Based Streamflow Prediction Through Event Greedy Selection, Asymmetric Loss Function, and Rainfall Forecasting Uncertainty
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper advances machine learning (ML)-based streamflow prediction by strategically selecting rainfall events, introducing a new loss function, and addressing rainfall forecast uncertainties. Focusing on the Iowa River Basin, we applied the stochastic storm transposition (SST) method to create realistic rainfall events, which were input into a hydrological model to generate corresponding streamflow data for training and testing deterministic and probabilistic ML models. Long short-term memory (LSTM) networks were employed to predict streamflow up to 12 h ahead. An active learning approach was used to identify the most informative rainfall events, reducing data generation effort. Additionally, we introduced a novel asymmetric peak loss function to improve peak streamflow prediction accuracy. Incorporating rainfall forecast uncertainties, our probabilistic LSTM model provided uncertainty quantification for streamflow predictions. Performance evaluation using different metrics improved the accuracy and reliability of our models. These contributions enhance flood forecasting and decision-making while significantly reducing computational time and costs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it