skip to main content
10.1145/3583780.3614719acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

STREAMS: Towards Spatio-Temporal Causal Discovery with Reinforcement Learning for Streamflow Rate Prediction

Published:21 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

The capacity to anticipate streamflow is critical to the efficient functioning of reservoir systems as it gives vital information to reservoir operators about water release quantities as well as help quantify the impact of environmental factors on downstream water quality. Yet, streamflow modelling is difficult owing to the intricate interactions between different watershed outlets. In this paper, we argue that one possible solution to this problem is to identify the causal structure of these outlets, which would allow for the identification of crucial watershed outlets while capturing the spatiotemporally informed complex relationships leading to improved hydrological resource management. However, due to the inherent complexity of spatiotemporal causal learning problems, extending existing causal discovery methods to a whole basin is a major hurdle. To address these issues, we offer STREAMS, a new framework that uses Reinforcement Learning (RL) to optimize the search space for causal discovery and an LSTM-GCN based autoencoder to infer spatiotemporal causal features for streamflow rate prediction. We conduct extensive experiments on the Brazos river basin carried out within the scope of a US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering With Nature Initiative project, including empirical studies of generalization performance to verify the nature of the inferred relationships.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

aprp1261-video.mp4

mp4

37 MB

References

  1. H Assaf and M Saadeh. 2009. Geostatistical assessment of groundwater nitrate contamination with reflection on DRASTIC vulnerability assessment: the case of the Upper Litani Basin, Lebanon. Water resources management, Vol. 23 (2009), 775--796.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Peter Bühlmann. 2020. Invariance, causality and robustness. Statist. Sci. (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. A Casado, S Bermudo, AD López-Sánchez, and J Sánchez-Oro. 2023. An iterated greedy algorithm for finding the minimum dominating set in graphs. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, Vol. 207 (2023), 41--58.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Tianfeng Chai and Roland R Draxler. 2014. Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)?--Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geoscientific model development, Vol. 7, 3 (2014), 1247--1250.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Hyeon Seok Choi, Joong Hoon Kim, Eui Hoon Lee, and Sun-Kwon Yoon. 2022. Development of a Revised Multi-Layer Perceptron Model for Dam Inflow Prediction. Water, Vol. 14, 12 (2022), 1878.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Hamidreza Ghasemi Damavandi, Reepal Shah, Dimitrios Stampoulis, Yuhang Wei, Dragan Boscovic, John Sabo, et al. 2019. Accurate prediction of streamflow using long short-term memory network: a case study in the Brazos River Basin in Texas. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, Vol. 10, 10 (2019), 294--300.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Arnaud De Myttenaere, Boris Golden, Bénédicte Le Grand, and Fabrice Rossi. 2016. Mean absolute percentage error for regression models. Neurocomputing, Vol. 192 (2016), 38--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Philip Hans Franses. 2016. A note on the mean absolute scaled error. International Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 32, 1 (2016), 20--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Dominique MA Haughton. 1988. On the choice of a model to fit data from an exponential family. The annals of statistics (1988), 342--355.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. HAWQS. 2020. HAWQS System and Data to Model the Lower 48 Conterminous U.S using the SWAT Model. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.18738/T8/XN3TE0Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Yiyi Huang, Matth"aus Kleindessner, Alexey Munishkin, Debvrat Varshney, Pei Guo, and Jianwu Wang. 2021. Benchmarking of data-driven causality discovery approaches in the interactions of arctic sea ice and atmosphere. Frontiers in big Data, Vol. 4 (2021), 642182.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Dostdar Hussain, Tahir Hussain, Aftab Ahmed Khan, Syed Ali Asad Naqvi, and Akhtar Jamil. 2020. A deep learning approach for hydrological time-series prediction: A case study of Gilgit river basin. Earth Science Informatics, Vol. 13 (2020), 915--927.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Piraporn Jangyodsuk, Dong-Jun Seo, and Jean Gao. 2014. Causal graph discovery for hydrological time series knowledge discovery. International Conference on Hydroinformatics (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Michael L Littman, and Andrew W Moore. 1996. Reinforcement learning: A survey. Journal of artificial intelligence research, Vol. 4 (1996), 237--285.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Jaewon Kwak, Heechan Han, Soojun Kim, and Hung Soo Kim. 2022. Is the deep-learning technique a completely alternative for the hydrological model?: A case study on Hyeongsan River Basin, Korea. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2022), 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Eui Hoon Lee. 2022. Runoff prediction of urban stream based on the discharge of pump stations using improved multi-layer perceptron applying new optimizers combined with a harmony search. Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 615 (2022), 128708.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Alexey Natekin and Alois Knoll. 2013. Gradient boosting machines, a tutorial. Frontiers in neurorobotics, Vol. 7 (2013), 21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Meike Nauta, Doina Bucur, and Christin Seifert. 2019. Causal discovery with attention-based convolutional neural networks. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction, Vol. 1, 1 (2019), 312--340.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Behnam Neyshabur, Srinadh Bhojanapalli, David McAllester, and Nati Srebro. 2017. Exploring generalization in deep learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, Vol. 30 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Mohammed Ombadi, Phu Nguyen, Soroosh Sorooshian, and Kuo-lin Hsu. 2020. Evaluation of methods for causal discovery in hydrometeorological systems. Water Resources Research, Vol. 56, 7 (2020), e2020WR027251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Roxana Pamfil, Nisara Sriwattanaworachai, Shaan Desai, Philip Pilgerstorfer, Konstantinos Georgatzis, Paul Beaumont, and Bryon Aragam. 2020. Dynotears: Structure learning from time-series data. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 1595--1605.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Mark R Segal. 2004. Machine learning benchmarks and random forest regression. (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Paras Sheth, Ting Liu, Durmus Doner, Qi Deng, Yuhang Wei, Rebecca Muenich, John Sabo, K Selcc uk Candan, and Huan Liu. 2022a. Causal Discovery for Feature Selection in Physical Process-Based Hydrological Systems. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). IEEE, 5568--5577.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Paras Sheth, Raha Moraffah, K Selcc uk Candan, Adrienne Raglin, and Huan Liu. 2022b. Domain Generalization--A Causal Perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15177 (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Paras Sheth, Reepal Shah, John Sabo, K Selcc uk Candan, and Huan Liu. 2022c. STCD: A Spatio-Temporal Causal Discovery Framework for Hydrological Systems. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). IEEE, 5578--5583.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. David Silver, Guy Lever, Nicolas Heess, Thomas Degris, Daan Wierstra, and Martin Riedmiller. 2014. Deterministic policy gradient algorithms. In International conference on machine learning. Pmlr, 387--395.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Ralf C Staudemeyer and Eric Rothstein Morris. 2019. Understanding LSTM--a tutorial into long short-term memory recurrent neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09586 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Xinwei Sun, Botong Wu, Xiangyu Zheng, Chang Liu, Wei Chen, Tao Qin, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2021. Recovering latent causal factor for generalization to distributional shifts. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 34 (2021), 16846--16859.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Manoj Tiwaskar, Yash Garg, Xinsheng Li, K Selcc uk Candan, and Maria Luisa Sapino. 2021. Selego: robust variate selection for accurate time series forecasting. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, Vol. 35 (2021), 2141--2167.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Chris Wallace, Kevin B Korb, and Honghua Dai. 1996. Causal discovery via MML. In ICML, Vol. 96. 516--524.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Sifan Wang, Shyam Sankaran, and Paris Perdikaris. 2022. Respecting causality is all you need for training physics-informed neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07404 (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Chixuan Wei, Zhihai Wang, Jidong Yuan, Chuanming Li, and Shengbo Chen. 2023. Time-frequency based multi-task learning for semi-supervised time series classification. Information Sciences, Vol. 619 (2023), 762--780.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Santiago Zazo, José-Luis Molina, Verónica Ruiz-Ortiz, Mercedes Vélez-Nicolás, and Santiago Garcia-López. 2020. Modeling river runoff temporal behavior through a hybrid causal--hydrological (HCH) method. Water, Vol. 12, 11 (2020), 3137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Shengyu Zhu, Ignavier Ng, and Zhitang Chen. 2019. Causal discovery with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.04477 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. STREAMS: Towards Spatio-Temporal Causal Discovery with Reinforcement Learning for Streamflow Rate Prediction

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            CIKM '23: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
            October 2023
            5508 pages
            ISBN:9798400701245
            DOI:10.1145/3583780

            Copyright © 2023 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 21 October 2023

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

            Upcoming Conference

          • Article Metrics

            • Downloads (Last 12 months)169
            • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)31

            Other Metrics

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader