Comparing three machine learning algorithms with existing methods for natural streamflow estimation

被引:3
|
作者
Mehrvand, Shahriar [1 ]
Boucher, Marie-Amelie [1 ]
Kornelsen, Kurt [2 ]
Amani, Alireza [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sherbrooke, Dept Genie Civil & Genie Batiment, 2500 Boul Univ, Sherbrooke, PQ J1K 2R1, Canada
[2] Ontario Power Generat, Dept Environm & Climate Change, Niagara On The Lake, ON, Canada
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
neural networks; random forest; light gradient boosting machine; drainage area ratio method; spatial proximity transfer; NEURAL-NETWORK ENSEMBLE; HYDROLOGICAL MODEL; PART; REGIONALIZATION; PARAMETERS; PREDICTION; REGRESSION; FLOW;
D O I
10.1080/02626667.2023.2273402
中图分类号
TV21 [水资源调查与水利规划];
学科分类号
081501 ;
摘要
Natural streamflow data is required in many hydrological applications. However, many basins are located in data-scarce regions or are impacted by human construction and activities. In this paper, we explore three machine learning algorithms, namely artificial neural networks, random forest and light gradient boosting machine, to simultaneously estimate all the parameters of the coupled modele du Genie Rural a 4 parametres Journaliers (GR4J) and snow accounting routine called CemaNeige model. A database of 675 basins in the USA and Quebec is used to train and test ensembles. After using the estimated parameters in GR4J, the resulting naturalized streamflow series are compared with those obtained by the established drainage area ratio and spatial proximity transfer methods in 11 test basins. The results indicate that the machine learning algorithms outperform the drainage area ratio and spatial proximity transfer methods. Among machine learning algorithms, random forests obtain lower (better) continuous ranked probability scores than the other methods for 10 out of 11 test basins.
引用
收藏
页码:79 / 94
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of Classical and Machine Learning Methods in Estimation of Missing Streamflow Data
    Dariane, A. B.
    Borhan, M. I.
    WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, 2024, 38 (04) : 1453 - 1478
  • [2] Comparing Machine Learning Methods in Estimation of Model Uncertainty
    Shrestha, Durga Lal
    Solomatine, Dimitri P.
    2008 IEEE INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON NEURAL NETWORKS, VOLS 1-8, 2008, : 1410 - 1416
  • [3] Comparison of Classical and Machine Learning Methods in Estimation of Missing Streamflow Data
    A. B. Dariane
    M. I. Borhan
    Water Resources Management, 2024, 38 (4) : 1453 - 1478
  • [4] Estimation of data-driven streamflow predicting models using machine learning methods
    Siddiqi T.A.
    Ashraf S.
    Khan S.A.
    Iqbal M.J.
    Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 2021, 14 (11)
  • [5] Short-term forecasting of streamflow by integrating machine learning methods combined with metaheuristic algorithms
    Jia, Faxian
    Zhu, Zijiang
    Dai, Weihuang
    Le, Van Vang
    EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2024, 245
  • [6] The great methods bake-off: Comparing performance of machine learning algorithms
    Kigerl, Alex
    Hamilton, Zachary
    Kowalski, Melissa
    Mei, Xiaohan
    JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 2022, 82
  • [7] Machine learning algorithms for streamflow forecasting of Lower Godavari Basin
    Vogeti, Rishith Kumar
    Mishra, Bhavesh Rahul
    Raju, K. Srinivasa
    H2OPEN JOURNAL, 2022, 5 (04) : 670 - 685
  • [8] Comparing the allometric model to machine learning algorithms for aboveground biomass estimation in tropical forests
    Roy, Abhilash Dutta
    Debbarma, Subedika
    ECOLOGICAL FRONTIERS, 2024, 44 (05): : 1069 - 1078
  • [9] Detection and Estimation of Natural Gas Leakage Using UAV by Machine Learning Algorithms
    Sonkar, Sarvesh Kumar
    Kumar, Prashant
    George, Riya Catherine
    Philip, Deepu
    Ghosh, Ajoy Kanti
    IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, 2022, 22 (08) : 8041 - 8049
  • [10] Comparison of different machine learning methods in river streamflow estimation using isovel contours and hydraulic variables
    Maghrebi, Mahmoud F.
    Vatanchi, Sajjad M.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT, 2024,