Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of multi-objective evolutionary neural network, adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and bootstrap-based neural network for flood forecasting

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Accurate flood forecasting is of utmost importance in mitigating flood disasters. Flood causes severe public and economic loss especially in large river basins. In this study, multi-objective evolutionary neural network (MOENN) model is developed for accurate and reliable hourly water level forecasting at Naraj gauging site in Mahanadi river basin, India. The performance of the developed model is compared with adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) and bootstrap-based neural network (BNN) models. The performance of the models is compared in terms of Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency, root mean square error, mean absolute error and percentage deviation in peak (D). The performance of the models in forecasting floods is also evaluated using existing performance evaluation criterion of Central Water Commission, India as well as a multiple linear regression model. A partitioning analysis in conjunction with threshold statistics is carried out to evaluate the performance of the developed models in forecasting floods for low, medium and high water levels. It is found that the performance of MOENN and BNN models is more stable and consistent compared to ANFIS model. For longer lead times, the performance of MOENN model is found to be the best, with its performance in forecasting higher water levels being significantly better compared to ANFIS and BNN models. Overall, it is found that MOENN model has great potential to be applied in flood forecasting.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kim S, Kim HS (2008) Neural networks and genetic algorithm approach for nonlinear evaporation and evapotranspiration modeling. J Hydrol 351:299–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wang T, Yang KL, Guo YX (2008) Application of artificial neural networks to forecasting ice conditions of the Yellow River in the Inner Mongolia Reach. J Hydrol Eng 13(9):811–816

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Tiwari MK, Chatterjee C (2010) Uncertainty assessment and ensemble flood forecasting using bootstrap based artificial neural networks (BANNs). J Hydrol 382:20–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tiwari MK, Chatterjee C (2010) Development of an accurate and reliable hourly flood forecasting model using wavelet-bootstrap-ANN (WBANN) hybrid approach. J Hydrol 394(3–4):458–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inform Control 8(3):338–353

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Nayak PC, Sudheer KP, Rangan DM, Ramasastri KS (2005) Short-term flood forecasting with a neurofuzzy model. Wat Resour Res 41:W04004

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cheng CT, Lin JY, Sun YG, Chau KW (2005) Long-term prediction of discharges in Manwan Hydropower using adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference systems models. Advances in Natural Computation, Pt 3, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, pp 1152–1161

  8. Keskin ME, Taylan D, Terzi O (2006) Adaptive neural-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) approach for modeling hydrological time series. Hydrol Sci J 51(4):588–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Firat M, Gungor M (2008) Hydrological time-series modeling using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Hydrol Processes 22(13):2122–2132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Abrahart RJ (2003) Neural network rainfall–runoff forecasting based on continuous resampling. J Hydroinf 5(1):51–61

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jeong D, Kim YO (2005) Rainfall–runoff models using artificial neural networks for ensemble streamflow prediction. Hydrol Processes 19:3819–3835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jia Y, Culver TB (2006) Bootstrapped artificial neural networks for synthetic flow generation with a small data sample. J Hydrol 331:580–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Srivastav RK, Sudheer KP, Chaubey I (2007) A simplified approach to quantifying predictive and parametric uncertainty in artificial neural network hydrologic models. Wat Resour Res 43:W10407

    Google Scholar 

  14. Selle B, Hannah B (2010) A bootstrap approach to assess parameter uncertainty in simple catchment models. Environ Model Soft 25:919–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ebtehaj M, Moradkhani H, Gupta HV (2010) Improving robustness of hydrologic parameter estimation by the use of moving block bootstrap resampling. Wat Resour Res 46:W07515

    Google Scholar 

  16. Morawietz M, Xu C-Y, Gottschalk L, Tallaksen LM (2011) Systematic evaluation of autoregressive error models as post-processors for a probabilistic streamflow forecast system. J Hydrol 407(1–4):58–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rajaee T, Mirbagheri SA, Zounemat-Kermani M, Nourani V (2009) Daily suspended sediment concentration simulation using ANN and neuro-fuzzy models. Sci Total Environ 407:4916–4927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nayak PC, Jain SK (2011) Modeling runoff and sediment rate using neuro-fuzzy technique. Proc Inst Civil Eng Water Manage 164(4):201–209. doi:10.1680/wama.900083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tayfur G, Ozdemir S, Singh VP (2006) ANN and fuzzy logic for simulating event-base rainfall-runoff. J Hydrol Eng 132(12):1321–1329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jothiprakash V, Magar RB, Kalkutki S (2009) Rainfall–runoff models using adaptive neuro–fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) for an intermittent River. Int J Artif Intell 3:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gautam DK, Holz KP (2001) Rainfall-runoff modelling using adaptive neuro-fuzzy systems. J Hydroinf 3:3–10

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nourani V, Kisi Ö, Komasi M (2011) Two hybrid artificial intelligence approaches for modeling rainfall–runoff process. J Hydrol 402(1–2):41–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Abraham A (2004) Meta learning evolutionary artificial neural networks. Neurocomputing 56:1–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems, 2nd edn. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dawson CW, See LM, Abrahart R, Heppenstall AJ (2006) Symbiotic adaptive neuro-evolution applied to rainfall-runoff modeling in northern England. Neural Netw 19:236–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Leahy P, Kiely G, Corcoran G (2008) Structural optimisation and input selection of an artificial neural network for river level prediction. J Hydrol 355(1):192–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chaves P, Chang FJ (2008) Intelligent reservoir operation system based on evolving artificial neural networks. Adv Wat Resour 31:926–936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Y-h Chen, Chang F-J (2009) Evolutionary artificial neural networks for hydrological systems forecasting. J Hydrol 367:125–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, Chicheter

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Coello CAC, Lamont GB, Veldhuizen DAV (2002) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. Kluwer, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Chakraborti N (2004) Genetic algorithms in materials design and processing. Int Mater Rev 49(3–4):246–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Biswas A, Maitre O, Mondal DN, Das SK, Sen PK, Collet P, Chakraborti N (2011) Data-driven multiobjective analysis of Manganese leaching from low grade sources using genetic algorithms, genetic programming, and other allied strategies. Mater Manuf Process 26(3):415–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Li X (2003) A real-coded predator–prey genetic algorithm for multiobjective optimization. In: Fonseca CM, Fleming PJ, Zitzler E, Deb K, Thiele L (eds) Proceedings of the second international conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization, lecture notes in computer science, 2632, LNCS, p 207

  34. Mitra T, Helle M, Pettersson F, Saxen H, Chakraborti N (2011) Multiobjective optimization of top gas recycling conditions in the blast furnace by genetic algorithms. Mater Manuf Process 26(3):475–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pettersson F, Suh C, Saxen H, Rajan K, Chakraborti N (2009) Analyzing sparse data for nitride spinels using data mining, neural networks, and multiobjective genetic algorithms. Mater Manuf Process 24(1):2–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mondal DN, Sarangi K, Pettersson F, Sen PK, Saxen H, Chakraborti N (2011) Cu–Zn separation by supported liquid membrane analyzed through multi-objective genetic algorithms. Hydromet 107(3–4):112–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Asokan SM, Dutta D (2008) Analysis of water resources in the Mahanadi River Basin, India under projected climate conditions. Hydrol Process 22:3589–3603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Dewri R, Chakraborti N (2005) Simulating recrystallization through cellular automata and genetic algorithms. Model Simul Mater Sci Eng 13(3):173–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pettersson F, Chakraborti N, Saxen H (2007) A genetic algorithms based multi-objective neural net applied to noisy blast furnace data. Appl Soft Comput 7:387–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Takagi T, Sugeno M (1985) Fuzzy identification of systems and its applications to modeling and control. IEEE Trans Syst Man and Cybern 15(1):116–132

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Jain A, Kumar S (2009) Dissection of trained neural network hydrologic models for knowledge extraction. Water Resour Res 45:W07420

    Google Scholar 

  42. Jang J-SR (1993) ANFIS: adaptive network based fuzzy inference system. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 23(3):665–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Efron B (1979) Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Statist 7(1):1–26

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Efron B, Tibshirani R (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Efron B, Tibshirani R (1986) The bootstrap method for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Stat Sci 1(1):1–35

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  46. Barreto H, Howland FM (2006) Introductory econometrics: using Monte Carlo simulation with microsoft excel. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  47. Twomey JM, Smith AE (1998) Bias and variance of validation methods for function approximation neural networks under conditions of sparse data. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 28(3):417–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pedhazur EJ (1982) Multiple regression in behavioral research: explanation and prediction. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  49. Leclerca M, Ouarda TBMJ (2007) Non-stationary regional flood frequency analysis at ungauged sites. J Hydrol 343:254–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sahoo GB, Schladow SG, Reuter JE (2009) Forecasting stream water temperature using regression analysis, artificial neural network, and chaotic non-linear dynamic models. J Hydrol 378:325–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Adamowski J, Chan HF, Prasher SO, Ozga-Zielinski B, Sliusarieva A (2012) Comparison of multiple linear and nonlinear regression, autoregressive integrated moving average, artificial neural network, and wavelet artificial neural network methods for urban water demand forecasting in Montreal, Canada. Wat Resour Res 48:W01528

    Google Scholar 

  52. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models-I. J Hydrol 10:282–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Garrick MC, Cunnane C, Nash JE (1978) A criterion of efficiency for rainfall-runoff models. J Hydrol 36:375–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Legates DR, McCabe GJ (1999) Evaluating the use of goodness-of-fit measure in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Wat Resour Res 35:233–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hsu K, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S (1995) Artificial neural network modeling of the rainfall-runoff process. Wat Resour Res 31(10):2517–2530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sudheer KP, Gosain AK, Ramasastri KS (2002) A data-driven algorithm for constructing artificial neural network rainfall-runoff models. Hydrol Process 16:1325–1330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Central Water Commission (1989) Manual on flood forecasting. River Management Wing, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, 721 302, West Bengal, India

    Amal Kant, Pranmohan K. Suman, Brijesh K. Giri, Mukesh K. Tiwari, Chandranath Chatterjee, Purna C. Nayak & Sawan Kumar

  2. Deltaic Regional Centre, National Institute of Hydrology, Siddartha Nagar, Kakinada, 533 003, Andhra Pradesh, India

    Purna C. Nayak

Authors
  1. Amal Kant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pranmohan K. Suman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brijesh K. Giri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mukesh K. Tiwari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chandranath Chatterjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Purna C. Nayak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sawan Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chandranath Chatterjee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kant, A., Suman, P.K., Giri, B.K. et al. Comparison of multi-objective evolutionary neural network, adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and bootstrap-based neural network for flood forecasting. Neural Comput & Applic 23 (Suppl 1), 231–246 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-013-1344-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-013-1344-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation