On the importance of training methods and ensemble aggregation for runoff prediction by means of artificial neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) become widely used for runoff forecasting in numerous studies. Usually classical gradient-based methods are applied in ANN training and a single ANN model is used. To improve the modelling performance, in some papers ensemble aggregation approaches are used whilst in others, novel training methods are proposed. In this study, the usefulness of both concepts is analysed. First, the applicability of a large number of population-based metaheuristics to ANN training for runoff forecasting is tested on data collected from four catchments, namely upper Annapolis (Nova Scotia, Canada), Biala Tarnowska (Poland), upper Allier (France) and Axe Creek (Victoria, Australia). Then, the importance of the search for novel training methods is compared with the importance of the use of a very simple ANN ensemble aggregation approach. It is shown that although some metaheuristics may slightly outperform the classical gradient-based Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm for a specific catchment, none performs better for the majority of the tested ones. One may also point out a few metaheuristics that do not suit ANN training at all. On the other hand, application of even the simplest ensemble aggregation approach clearly improves the results when the ensemble members are trained by any suitable algorithms.EDITOR D. Koutsoyiannis; ASSOCIATE EDITOR E. Toth EDITOR D. Koutsoyiannis; ASSOCIATE EDITOR E. Toth
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".