MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417227211 · doi:10.1144/gh2025-4

Unravelling the power of neural networks for flood prediction across complex hydrological systems

2025· article· en· W4417227211 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Saberian, Nima Zafarmomen, Krishna Panthi, Vidya Samadi

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoHorizons · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFlood mythHydrometeorologyArtificial neural networkFlooding (psychology)Feature (linguistics)Interpolation (computer graphics)Warning systemReliability (semiconductor)Set (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing frequency and intensity of flooding events, driven by climate change and land-use modifications, call for the development of more advanced prediction tools to support early warning systems and disaster mitigation strategies. This chapter explores the use of multiple neural networks for flood prediction, focusing on their application in two complex and hydrologically challenging gauging stations in the USA: the Satilla River near Waycross, Georgia, and the coastal area of Socastee, South Carolina. We examined three state-of-the-art neural networks with different algorithmic structures: N-HiTS (Neural Hierarchical Interpolation for Time Series Forecasting), a residual-based model; LSTM (Long Short-Term Memory), a recurrent neural network optimized for capturing sequential dependencies; and PatchTST, a transformer-based architecture utilizing self-attention and patch embedding strategies. All models were trained using multi-year hydrometeorological time-series data (2007–22) and evaluated on an independent testing set (2022–24) across multiple prediction horizons (1, 3, 6 and 12 h). Among multiple models, N-HiTS consistently outperformed LSTM and PatchTST in both flood-prone settings. N-HiTS demonstrated superior accuracy, especially under complex tidal conditions, due to its hierarchical structure and multi-scale feature representation. PatchTST performed competitively in stable hydrological regimes, while LSTM struggled with long-term dependencies and dynamical shift in hydrological behaviours. These results emphasize the effectiveness of N-HiTS in capturing flood dynamics across multiple horizons, enhancing flood prediction reliability across multiple temporal and spatial scales.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoHorizonsSame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207