Cargando…

Assessing the performance of a suite of machine learning models for daily river water temperature prediction

In this study, different versions of feedforward neural network (FFNN), Gaussian process regression (GPR), and decision tree (DT) models were developed to estimate daily river water temperature using air temperature (T(a)), flow discharge (Q), and the day of year (DOY) as predictors. The proposed mo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhu, Senlin, Nyarko, Emmanuel Karlo, Hadzima-Nyarko, Marijana, Heddam, Salim, Wu, Shiqiang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6555394/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31198649
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7065
_version_ 1783425148545662976
author Zhu, Senlin
Nyarko, Emmanuel Karlo
Hadzima-Nyarko, Marijana
Heddam, Salim
Wu, Shiqiang
author_facet Zhu, Senlin
Nyarko, Emmanuel Karlo
Hadzima-Nyarko, Marijana
Heddam, Salim
Wu, Shiqiang
author_sort Zhu, Senlin
collection PubMed
description In this study, different versions of feedforward neural network (FFNN), Gaussian process regression (GPR), and decision tree (DT) models were developed to estimate daily river water temperature using air temperature (T(a)), flow discharge (Q), and the day of year (DOY) as predictors. The proposed models were assessed using observed data from eight river stations, and modelling results were compared with the air2stream model. Model performances were evaluated using four indicators in this study: the coefficient of correlation (R), the Willmott index of agreement (d), the root mean squared error (RMSE), and the mean absolute error (MAE). Results indicated that the three machine learning models had similar performance when only T(a) was used as the predictor. When the day of year was included as model input, the performances of the three machine learning models dramatically improved. Including flow discharge instead of day of year, as an additional predictor, provided a lower gain in model accuracy, thereby showing the relatively minor role of flow discharge in river water temperature prediction. However, an increase in the relative importance of flow discharge was noticed for stations with high altitude catchments (Rhône, Dischmabach and Cedar) which are influenced by cold water releases from hydropower or snow melting, suggesting the dependence of the role of flow discharge on the hydrological characteristics of such rivers. The air2stream model outperformed the three machine learning models for most of the studied rivers except for the cases where including flow discharge as a predictor provided the highest benefits. The DT model outperformed the FFNN and GPR models in the calibration phase, however in the validation phase, its performance slightly decreased. In general, the FFNN model performed slightly better than GPR model. In summary, the overall modelling results showed that the three machine learning models performed well for river water temperature modelling.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6555394
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65553942019-06-13 Assessing the performance of a suite of machine learning models for daily river water temperature prediction Zhu, Senlin Nyarko, Emmanuel Karlo Hadzima-Nyarko, Marijana Heddam, Salim Wu, Shiqiang PeerJ Computational Science In this study, different versions of feedforward neural network (FFNN), Gaussian process regression (GPR), and decision tree (DT) models were developed to estimate daily river water temperature using air temperature (T(a)), flow discharge (Q), and the day of year (DOY) as predictors. The proposed models were assessed using observed data from eight river stations, and modelling results were compared with the air2stream model. Model performances were evaluated using four indicators in this study: the coefficient of correlation (R), the Willmott index of agreement (d), the root mean squared error (RMSE), and the mean absolute error (MAE). Results indicated that the three machine learning models had similar performance when only T(a) was used as the predictor. When the day of year was included as model input, the performances of the three machine learning models dramatically improved. Including flow discharge instead of day of year, as an additional predictor, provided a lower gain in model accuracy, thereby showing the relatively minor role of flow discharge in river water temperature prediction. However, an increase in the relative importance of flow discharge was noticed for stations with high altitude catchments (Rhône, Dischmabach and Cedar) which are influenced by cold water releases from hydropower or snow melting, suggesting the dependence of the role of flow discharge on the hydrological characteristics of such rivers. The air2stream model outperformed the three machine learning models for most of the studied rivers except for the cases where including flow discharge as a predictor provided the highest benefits. The DT model outperformed the FFNN and GPR models in the calibration phase, however in the validation phase, its performance slightly decreased. In general, the FFNN model performed slightly better than GPR model. In summary, the overall modelling results showed that the three machine learning models performed well for river water temperature modelling. PeerJ Inc. 2019-06-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6555394/ /pubmed/31198649 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7065 Text en ©2019 Zhu et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
spellingShingle Computational Science
Zhu, Senlin
Nyarko, Emmanuel Karlo
Hadzima-Nyarko, Marijana
Heddam, Salim
Wu, Shiqiang
Assessing the performance of a suite of machine learning models for daily river water temperature prediction
title Assessing the performance of a suite of machine learning models for daily river water temperature prediction
title_full Assessing the performance of a suite of machine learning models for daily river water temperature prediction
title_fullStr Assessing the performance of a suite of machine learning models for daily river water temperature prediction
title_full_unstemmed Assessing the performance of a suite of machine learning models for daily river water temperature prediction
title_short Assessing the performance of a suite of machine learning models for daily river water temperature prediction
title_sort assessing the performance of a suite of machine learning models for daily river water temperature prediction
topic Computational Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6555394/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31198649
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7065
work_keys_str_mv AT zhusenlin assessingtheperformanceofasuiteofmachinelearningmodelsfordailyriverwatertemperatureprediction
AT nyarkoemmanuelkarlo assessingtheperformanceofasuiteofmachinelearningmodelsfordailyriverwatertemperatureprediction
AT hadzimanyarkomarijana assessingtheperformanceofasuiteofmachinelearningmodelsfordailyriverwatertemperatureprediction
AT heddamsalim assessingtheperformanceofasuiteofmachinelearningmodelsfordailyriverwatertemperatureprediction
AT wushiqiang assessingtheperformanceofasuiteofmachinelearningmodelsfordailyriverwatertemperatureprediction