Towards Safer Data-Driven Forecasting of Extreme StreamflowsAn Example Using Support Vector Regression

被引:0
作者
José P. Matos
Maria M. Portela
Anton J. Schleiss
机构
[1] Laboratoire de Constructions Hydrauliques,École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
[2] University of Lisbon,École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
[3] Instituto Superior Técnico,undefined
[4] Laboratoire de Constructions Hydrauliques,undefined
来源
Water Resources Management | 2018年 / 32卷
关键词
Artificial neural networks; Discharge; Extreme events; Forecasting; Support vector regression;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Predicting extreme events is one of the major goals of streamflow forecasting, but models that are reliable under such conditions are hard to come by. This stems in part from the fact that, in many cases, calibration is based on recorded time series that do not comprise extreme events. The problem is particularly relevant in the case of data-driven models, which are focused in this work. Based on synthetic and real world streamflow forecasting examples, two main research questions are addressed: 1) would/should the models chosen by established practice be maintained were extreme events being considered and 2) how can established practice be improved in order to reduce the risks associated with the poor forecasting of extreme events? Among the data-driven models employed in streamflow forecasting, Support Vector Regression (SVR) has earned the researchers’ interest due to its good comparative performance. The present contribution builds upon the theory underlying this model in order to illustrate and discuss its tendency to predictably underestimate extreme flood peaks, raising awareness to the obvious risks that entails. While focusing on SVR, the work highlights dangers potentially present in other non-linear regularized models. The results clearly show that, under certain conditions, established practices for validation and choice may fail to identify the best models for predicting extreme streamflow events. Also, the paper puts forward practical recommendations that may help avoiding potential problems, namely: establishing up to what return period does the model maintain good performances; privileging small λ hyperparameters in Radial Basis Function (RBF) SVR models; preferring linear models when their validation performances are similar to those of non-linear models; and making use of predictions made by more than one type of data-driven model.
引用
收藏
页码:701 / 720
页数:19
相关论文
共 134 条
[1]  
Abrahart RJ(2000)Comparing neural network and autoregressive moving average techniques for the provision of continuous river flow forecasts in two contrasting catchments Hydrol Process 14 2157-2172
[2]  
See L(2009)River flow forecasting with artificial neural networks using satellite observed precipitation pre-processed with flow length and travel time information: case study of the Ganges river basin Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 13 1607-1618
[3]  
Akhtar MK(2013)Forecasting with prediction intervals for periodic autoregressive moving average models J Time Ser Anal 34 187-193
[4]  
Corzo GA(2000)Artificial neural network in hydrology. II: hydrologic applications J Hydrol Eng 5 124-137
[5]  
van Andel SJ(2000)Artificial neural networks in hydrology. I: preliminary concepts J Hydrol Eng 5 115-123
[6]  
Jonoski A(2006)Multi-time scale stream flow predictions: The support vector machines approach J Hydrol 318 7-16
[7]  
Anderson PL(2009)Generalization performance of support vector machines and neural networks in runoff modeling Expert Syst Appl 36 7624-7629
[8]  
Meerschaert MM(1993)Prophecy, reality and uncertainty in distributed hydrological modelling Adv Water Resour 16 41-51
[9]  
Zhang K(1970)The convergence of a class of double-rank minimization algorithms 1. General considerations IMA J Appl Math 6 76-90
[10]  
Asefa T(2005)Functional networks in real-time flood forecasting - a novel application Adv Water Resour 28 899-909