模拟河流和喀斯特环境中的水文路径贡献:对概念、物理和深度学习建模方法的评估

IF 3.1 Q2 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of Hydrology X Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.hydroa.2022.100134
Admin Husic , Nabil Al-Aamery , James F. Fox
{"title":"模拟河流和喀斯特环境中的水文路径贡献:对概念、物理和深度学习建模方法的评估","authors":"Admin Husic ,&nbsp;Nabil Al-Aamery ,&nbsp;James F. Fox","doi":"10.1016/j.hydroa.2022.100134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Hydrologic models are robust tools for estimating key parameters in the management of water resources, including water inputs, storage, and pathway fluxes. The selection of process-based versus data-driven modeling structure is an important consideration, particularly as advancements in machine learning yield potential for improved model performance but at the cost of lacking physical analogues. Despite recent advancement, there exists an absence of cross-model comparison of the tradeoffs between process-based and data-driven model types in settings with varying hydrologic controls. In this study, we use physically-based (SWAT), conceptually-based (LUMP), and deep-learning (LSTM) models to simulate hydrologic pathway contributions for a fluvial watershed and a karst basin over a twenty-year period. We find that, while all models are satisfactory, the LSTM model outperformed both the SWAT and LUMP models in simulating total discharge and that the improved performance was more evident in the groundwater-dominated karst system than the surface-dominated fluvial stream. Further, the LSTM model was able to achieve this improved performance with only 10–25% of the observed time-series as training data. Regarding pathways, the LSTM model coupled with a recursive digital filter was able to successfully match the magnitude of process-based estimates of quick, intermediate, and slow flow contributions for both basins (<em>ρ</em> ranging from 0.58 to 0.71). However, the process-based models exhibited more realistic time-fractal scaling of hydrologic flow pathways compared to the LSTM model which, depending on project objectives, presents a potential drawback to the use of machine learning models for some hydrologic applications. This study demonstrates the utility and potential extraction of physical-analogues of LSTM modeling, which will be useful as deep learning approaches to hydrologic modeling become more prominent and modelers look for ways to infer physical information from data-driven predictions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36948,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hydrology X","volume":"17 ","pages":"Article 100134"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589915522000165/pdfft?md5=31e75e1d709eb33218631d5f54083cfb&pid=1-s2.0-S2589915522000165-main.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Simulating hydrologic pathway contributions in fluvial and karst settings: An evaluation of conceptual, physically-based, and deep learning modeling approaches\",\"authors\":\"Admin Husic ,&nbsp;Nabil Al-Aamery ,&nbsp;James F. Fox\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.hydroa.2022.100134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Hydrologic models are robust tools for estimating key parameters in the management of water resources, including water inputs, storage, and pathway fluxes. The selection of process-based versus data-driven modeling structure is an important consideration, particularly as advancements in machine learning yield potential for improved model performance but at the cost of lacking physical analogues. Despite recent advancement, there exists an absence of cross-model comparison of the tradeoffs between process-based and data-driven model types in settings with varying hydrologic controls. In this study, we use physically-based (SWAT), conceptually-based (LUMP), and deep-learning (LSTM) models to simulate hydrologic pathway contributions for a fluvial watershed and a karst basin over a twenty-year period. We find that, while all models are satisfactory, the LSTM model outperformed both the SWAT and LUMP models in simulating total discharge and that the improved performance was more evident in the groundwater-dominated karst system than the surface-dominated fluvial stream. Further, the LSTM model was able to achieve this improved performance with only 10–25% of the observed time-series as training data. Regarding pathways, the LSTM model coupled with a recursive digital filter was able to successfully match the magnitude of process-based estimates of quick, intermediate, and slow flow contributions for both basins (<em>ρ</em> ranging from 0.58 to 0.71). However, the process-based models exhibited more realistic time-fractal scaling of hydrologic flow pathways compared to the LSTM model which, depending on project objectives, presents a potential drawback to the use of machine learning models for some hydrologic applications. This study demonstrates the utility and potential extraction of physical-analogues of LSTM modeling, which will be useful as deep learning approaches to hydrologic modeling become more prominent and modelers look for ways to infer physical information from data-driven predictions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hydrology X\",\"volume\":\"17 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100134\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589915522000165/pdfft?md5=31e75e1d709eb33218631d5f54083cfb&pid=1-s2.0-S2589915522000165-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hydrology X\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589915522000165\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hydrology X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589915522000165","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

水文模型是估计水资源管理关键参数的有力工具,包括水的输入、储存和路径通量。基于过程与数据驱动的建模结构的选择是一个重要的考虑因素,特别是机器学习的进步产生了改进模型性能的潜力,但代价是缺乏物理类似物。尽管最近取得了进展,但在不同水文控制环境下,缺乏基于过程和数据驱动的模型类型之间权衡的跨模型比较。在这项研究中,我们使用基于物理的(SWAT)、基于概念的(LUMP)和深度学习(LSTM)模型来模拟河流流域和喀斯特盆地在20年期间的水文路径贡献。我们发现,虽然所有模型都令人满意,但LSTM模型在模拟总流量方面优于SWAT和LUMP模型,并且在地下水为主的喀斯特系统中比地表为主的河流系统性能的改善更为明显。此外,LSTM模型仅使用10-25%的观测时间序列作为训练数据就能实现这种改进的性能。在路径方面,LSTM模型与递归数字滤波器相结合,能够成功匹配两个流域基于过程的快速、中间和慢流贡献估计的大小(ρ范围从0.58到0.71)。然而,与LSTM模型相比,基于过程的模型显示出更真实的水文流动路径的时间分形尺度,这取决于项目目标,在某些水文应用中使用机器学习模型存在潜在的缺点。这项研究证明了LSTM建模的物理类似物的实用性和潜在提取,随着水文建模的深度学习方法变得越来越突出,建模者寻找从数据驱动的预测中推断物理信息的方法,这将是有用的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Simulating hydrologic pathway contributions in fluvial and karst settings: An evaluation of conceptual, physically-based, and deep learning modeling approaches

Hydrologic models are robust tools for estimating key parameters in the management of water resources, including water inputs, storage, and pathway fluxes. The selection of process-based versus data-driven modeling structure is an important consideration, particularly as advancements in machine learning yield potential for improved model performance but at the cost of lacking physical analogues. Despite recent advancement, there exists an absence of cross-model comparison of the tradeoffs between process-based and data-driven model types in settings with varying hydrologic controls. In this study, we use physically-based (SWAT), conceptually-based (LUMP), and deep-learning (LSTM) models to simulate hydrologic pathway contributions for a fluvial watershed and a karst basin over a twenty-year period. We find that, while all models are satisfactory, the LSTM model outperformed both the SWAT and LUMP models in simulating total discharge and that the improved performance was more evident in the groundwater-dominated karst system than the surface-dominated fluvial stream. Further, the LSTM model was able to achieve this improved performance with only 10–25% of the observed time-series as training data. Regarding pathways, the LSTM model coupled with a recursive digital filter was able to successfully match the magnitude of process-based estimates of quick, intermediate, and slow flow contributions for both basins (ρ ranging from 0.58 to 0.71). However, the process-based models exhibited more realistic time-fractal scaling of hydrologic flow pathways compared to the LSTM model which, depending on project objectives, presents a potential drawback to the use of machine learning models for some hydrologic applications. This study demonstrates the utility and potential extraction of physical-analogues of LSTM modeling, which will be useful as deep learning approaches to hydrologic modeling become more prominent and modelers look for ways to infer physical information from data-driven 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 Hydrology X
Journal of Hydrology X Environmental Science-Water Science and Technology
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
20
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
Association of climate variability modes with concurrent droughts and heatwaves in India Climatology of extreme precipitation spells induced by cloudburst-like events during the Indian Summer Monsoon AutoVL: Automated streamflow separation for changing catchments and climate impact analysis Practical application of time-lapse camera imagery to develop water-level data for three hydrologic monitoring sites in Wisconsin during water year 2020 Hydrograph and recession flows simulations using deep learning: Watershed uniqueness and objective functions
×
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