Skip to main content

Flow Prediction Versus Flow Simulation Using Machine Learning Algorithms

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Machine Learning and Data Mining in Pattern Recognition (MLDM 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 10935))

Abstract

The paper deals with differences between two types of machine learning river flow modelling, i.e., their simulation and prediction. In this paper, “simulation” means a determination of river flows from only meteorological data. The second type of modelling, i.e., prediction, additionally includes preceding flows in the input data. Preceding flows are known at the time of making a prediction. For this reason, i.e., because less input data serve for the simulation, it is a more difficult task than the prediction, and its degree of precision is also usually lower. The authors focused on the improvement of flow simulation methodology, i.e., the determination of river flows only from climate data. Several machine learning models were tested for this purpose, and their results are compared in the paper with a conceptual hydrological model. Three options were evaluated in the paper for the improvement of the precision of the machine learning type of flows simulation: (1) the effect of the use of different types of models, (2) the impact from the expansion of input data utilizing feature engineering, and (3) improving the accuracy of the simulation by applying an ensemble paradigm. An increased degree of precision (approximately 12%) of the flow simulation was obtained after the incorporation of the above methodological enhancements to the computations (when compared to standard hydrological methods). The authors believe that the proposed methodology will be a promising alternative to the usual hydrological simulation, and it would be useful to test it in an extended study in which more streams would be evaluated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. ASCE Task Committee on Application of Artificial Neural Networks in Hydrology: Artificial neural networks in hydrology. I: preliminary concepts. J. Hydrol. Eng. 5(2), 115–123 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Papacharalampous, G.A., Tyralis, H., Koutsoyiannis, D.: Comparison of stochastic and machine learning methods for multi-step ahead forecasting of hydrological processes. Preprints 2017, 2017100133. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201710.0133.v1

  3. Maier, H.R., Dandy, G.C.: Neural networks for the prediction and forecasting of water resources variables: a review of modelling issues and applications. Environ. Model Softw. 15(1), 101–124 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yaseen, Z.M., El-Shafie, A., Jaafar, O., Afan, H.A., Sayl, K.N.: Artificial intelligence based models for stream-flow forecasting: 2000–2015. J. Hydrol. 530, 829–844 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Szalai, S., Spinoni, J., Galos, B., Bessenyei, M., Molar, P., Szentimrey, T.: Use of regional database for climate change and drought. In: 5th IDRC Davos 2014. Global Risk Forum GRF Davos (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Viglione, A., Parajka, J.: TUWmodel: Lumped Hydrological Model for Education Purposes. R package version 0.1-8 (2016). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=TUWmodel

  7. Lindström, G., et al.: Development and test of the distributed HBV-96 hydrological model. J. Hydrol. 201(1–4), 272–288 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Parajka, J., Merz, R., Blöschl, G.: Uncertainty and multiple objective calibration in regional water balance modelling: case study in 320 Austrian catchments. Hydrol. Process. 21(4), 435–446 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Boisvert, J., El-Jabi, N., St-Hilaire, A., El Adlouni, S.E.: Parameter estimation of a distributed hydrological model using a genetic algorithm. Open J. Mod. Hydrol. 6(3), 151–167 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Breiman, L.: Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45(1), 5–32 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Liaw, A., Wiener, M.: Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2(3), 18–22 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  12. R Core Team: R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2017). https://www.R-project.org/

  13. Friedman, J.H.: Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann. Stat. 29(5), 1189–1232 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen, T., Guestrin, C.: XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 785–794. ACM (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  15. XGBoost Homepage. https://xgboost.readthedocs.io/en/latest/. Accessed 16 Mar 2018

  16. Allaire, J.J., Chollet, F.: keras: R Interface to ‘Keras’. R package version 2.1.4 (2018). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=keras

  17. Nash, J.E., Sutcliffe, J.V.: River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I-A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 10(3), 282–290 (1970)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gupta, H.V., et al.: Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: implications for improving hydrological modelling. J. Hydrol. 377(1–2), 80–91 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kling, H., Fuchs, M., Paulin, M.: Runoff conditions in the upper Danube basin under an ensemble of climate change scenarios. J. Hydrol. 424, 264–277 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Breiman, L.: Stacked regressions. Mach. Learn. 24(1), 49–64 (1996)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under Contract No. APVV-15-0489 and by the Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Grant No. 1/0665/15.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Milan Cisty .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Cisty, M., Soldanova, V. (2018). Flow Prediction Versus Flow Simulation Using Machine Learning Algorithms. In: Perner, P. (eds) Machine Learning and Data Mining in Pattern Recognition. MLDM 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10935. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96133-0_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96133-0_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-96132-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-96133-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics