水文研究中 ML 技术的性能评估:比较 SWAT、GR4J 和基于 ML 的先进模型模拟的河水流量

IF 1.3 4区 地球科学 Q3 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of Earth System Science Pub Date : 2024-07-12 DOI:10.1007/s12040-024-02340-0
Siddik Barbhuiya, Ankita Manekar, Meenu Ramadas
{"title":"水文研究中 ML 技术的性能评估:比较 SWAT、GR4J 和基于 ML 的先进模型模拟的河水流量","authors":"Siddik Barbhuiya, Ankita Manekar, Meenu Ramadas","doi":"10.1007/s12040-024-02340-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study presents a comprehensive comparison between traditional hydrological models and advanced machine learning (ML) techniques in predicting streamflow dynamics. Traditional models, namely the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) and Génie Rural à 4 Paramètres Journalier (GR4J), are juxtaposed against ML models, including Random Forest (RF), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and Bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM). Both SWAT and GR4J demonstrated commendable performance, with GR4J displaying marginally superior predictive accuracy, evidenced by its tighter RMSE values. In the realm of ML, RF exhibited exceptional prowess in integrating diverse climatic features, especially in a scenario integrating comprehensive meteorological data. ANN showcased consistent performance across different input scenarios, emphasising its robustness. LSTM and BiLSTM, tailored for time series data, underscored the importance of precipitation’s temporal dynamics in streamflow predictions. A notable revelation is the significance of choosing appropriate input data, with certain scenarios outperforming others based on the amalgamation of meteorological parameters. The flow duration curve (FDC) analysis further highlighted the model capabilities, with RF and BiLSTM excelling in capturing extreme flows, while traditional models resonated more with medium flow regimes. This research offers vital insights for hydrologists and decision-makers, aiding in informed model selection for streamflow predictions.</p>","PeriodicalId":15609,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Earth System Science","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance evaluation of ML techniques in hydrologic studies: Comparing streamflow simulated by SWAT, GR4J, and state-of-the-art ML-based models\",\"authors\":\"Siddik Barbhuiya, Ankita Manekar, Meenu Ramadas\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12040-024-02340-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This study presents a comprehensive comparison between traditional hydrological models and advanced machine learning (ML) techniques in predicting streamflow dynamics. Traditional models, namely the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) and Génie Rural à 4 Paramètres Journalier (GR4J), are juxtaposed against ML models, including Random Forest (RF), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and Bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM). Both SWAT and GR4J demonstrated commendable performance, with GR4J displaying marginally superior predictive accuracy, evidenced by its tighter RMSE values. In the realm of ML, RF exhibited exceptional prowess in integrating diverse climatic features, especially in a scenario integrating comprehensive meteorological data. ANN showcased consistent performance across different input scenarios, emphasising its robustness. LSTM and BiLSTM, tailored for time series data, underscored the importance of precipitation’s temporal dynamics in streamflow predictions. A notable revelation is the significance of choosing appropriate input data, with certain scenarios outperforming others based on the amalgamation of meteorological parameters. The flow duration curve (FDC) analysis further highlighted the model capabilities, with RF and BiLSTM excelling in capturing extreme flows, while traditional models resonated more with medium flow regimes. This research offers vital insights for hydrologists and decision-makers, aiding in informed model selection for streamflow predictions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Earth System Science\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Earth System Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-024-02340-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Earth System Science","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-024-02340-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究对传统水文模型和先进的机器学习(ML)技术在预测溪流动态方面进行了全面比较。传统模型,即水土评估工具 (SWAT) 和 Génie Rural à 4 Paramètres Journalier (GR4J),与 ML 模型,包括随机森林 (RF)、人工神经网络 (ANN)、长短期记忆 (LSTM) 和双向 LSTM (BiLSTM) 进行了对比。SWAT 和 GR4J 的表现都值得称赞,其中 GR4J 的预测准确性略胜一筹,其 RMSE 值较小就是证明。在 ML 领域,RF 在整合各种气候特征方面表现出了非凡的能力,尤其是在整合综合气象数据的情况下。ANN 在不同的输入场景中表现出一致的性能,突出了其鲁棒性。专为时间序列数据定制的 LSTM 和 BiLSTM 强调了降水的时间动态在流量预测中的重要性。一个值得注意的启示是,选择适当的输入数据非常重要,在综合气象参数的基础上,某些方案优于其他方案。流量持续时间曲线(FDC)分析进一步凸显了模型的能力,RF 和 BiLSTM 在捕捉极端流量方面表现出色,而传统模型则更适合中等流量状态。这项研究为水文学家和决策者提供了重要的启示,有助于在预测河水流量时明智地选择模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Performance evaluation of ML techniques in hydrologic studies: Comparing streamflow simulated by SWAT, GR4J, and state-of-the-art ML-based models

This study presents a comprehensive comparison between traditional hydrological models and advanced machine learning (ML) techniques in predicting streamflow dynamics. Traditional models, namely the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) and Génie Rural à 4 Paramètres Journalier (GR4J), are juxtaposed against ML models, including Random Forest (RF), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and Bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM). Both SWAT and GR4J demonstrated commendable performance, with GR4J displaying marginally superior predictive accuracy, evidenced by its tighter RMSE values. In the realm of ML, RF exhibited exceptional prowess in integrating diverse climatic features, especially in a scenario integrating comprehensive meteorological data. ANN showcased consistent performance across different input scenarios, emphasising its robustness. LSTM and BiLSTM, tailored for time series data, underscored the importance of precipitation’s temporal dynamics in streamflow predictions. A notable revelation is the significance of choosing appropriate input data, with certain scenarios outperforming others based on the amalgamation of meteorological parameters. The flow duration curve (FDC) analysis further highlighted the model capabilities, with RF and BiLSTM excelling in capturing extreme flows, while traditional models resonated more with medium flow regimes. This research offers vital insights for hydrologists and decision-makers, aiding in informed model selection for streamflow predictions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Earth System Science
Journal of Earth System Science Earth and Planetary Sciences-General Earth and Planetary Sciences
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
226
期刊介绍: The Journal of Earth System Science, an International Journal, was earlier a part of the Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences – Section A begun in 1934, and later split in 1978 into theme journals. This journal was published as Proceedings – Earth and Planetary Sciences since 1978, and in 2005 was renamed ‘Journal of Earth System Science’. The journal is highly inter-disciplinary and publishes scholarly research – new data, ideas, and conceptual advances – in Earth System Science. The focus is on the evolution of the Earth as a system: manuscripts describing changes of anthropogenic origin in a limited region are not considered unless they go beyond describing the changes to include an analysis of earth-system processes. The journal''s scope includes the solid earth (geosphere), the atmosphere, the hydrosphere (including cryosphere), and the biosphere; it also addresses related aspects of planetary and space sciences. Contributions pertaining to the Indian sub- continent and the surrounding Indian-Ocean region are particularly welcome. Given that a large number of manuscripts report either observations or model results for a limited domain, manuscripts intended for publication in JESS are expected to fulfill at least one of the following three criteria. The data should be of relevance and should be of statistically significant size and from a region from where such data are sparse. If the data are from a well-sampled region, the data size should be considerable and advance our knowledge of the region. A model study is carried out to explain observations reported either in the same manuscript or in the literature. The analysis, whether of data or with models, is novel and the inferences advance the current knowledge.
期刊最新文献
Alteration zone mapping in tropical region: A comparison between data-driven and knowledge-driven techniques Chemical hydrogeodynamics of the Kultuk groundwater reservoir vs. paragenetically related large earthquakes in the central Baikal Rift System, Siberia Evidence of a Proterozoic suture along the southern part of Eastern Ghats Mobile Belt: Implications for the Nuna supercontinent Assessment of urban sprawl using proximity factors in Lucknow City, India Integration of machine learning and remote sensing for assessing the change detection of mangrove forests along the Mumbai coast
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1