Prophet-Based Artificial Intelligence Versus Seasonal Auto-Regressive Models for Flood Forecasting with Exogenous Variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate stream flow forecasting is essential for flood risk management and preparedness. This study compares two forecasting approaches: (a) the Seasonal Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average with Exogenous Regressors (SARIMAX), a classical statistical model, and (b) Prophet, a decomposable time-series forecasting model that incorporates seasonality and exogenous predictors. Forecasts were generated for 15-day and 3-day horizons and evaluated using uncertainty bounds, Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), and the coefficient of determination (R2). Results indicate that SARIMAX was less effective at capturing the observed variability, producing wide uncertainty (177.7%) and high errors (MAE = 153.73; RMSE = 207.10) with a negative R2 (–4.42). At shorter horizons, its performance remained limited (uncertainty = 28.04%; MAE = 61.52; RMSE = 94.88; R2 = –0.14). In contrast, Prophet achieved significantly lower uncertainty (16%), high accuracy (R2 = 0.95), and exceptional performance on short-term forecasts (R2 = 0.99). Conventional procedures such as SARIMAX have long been relied upon by engineers for their interpretability, and remain important as part of a strategy; however, they fail to represent nonlinear dynamics and exogenous influences now captured effectively by AI-based models. These findings highlight Prophet’s superiority across horizons and its promise for enhancing operational flood forecasting through its ability to effectively capture non-linear dynamics and exogenous influences.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".