Intercomparison of deep learning models in predicting streamflow patterns: insight from CMIP6

被引:0
|
作者
Anwar, Hamid [1 ]
Khan, Afed Ullah [1 ]
Ullah, Basir [1 ]
Taha, Abubakr Taha Bakheit [2 ,3 ]
Najeh, Taoufik [4 ]
Badshah, Muhammad Usman [5 ]
Ghanim, Abdulnoor A. J. [6 ]
Irfan, Muhammad [7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Engn & Technol, Dept Civil Engn, Peshawar 25000, Pakistan
[2] Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz Univ, Coll Engn, Dept Civil Engn, Al Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia
[3] Red Sea Univ, Fac Engn, Dept Civil Engn, Port 36481, Sudan
[4] Lulea Univ Technol, Dept Civil Environm & Nat Resources Engn, Operat & Maintenance, Operat Maintenance & Acoust, Lulea, Sweden
[5] Water & Power Div, Peshawar, Pakistan
[6] Najran Univ, Coll Engn, Civil Engn Dept, Najran 61441, Saudi Arabia
[7] Najran Univ Saudi Arabia, Coll Engn, Elect Engn Dept, Najran 61441, Saudi Arabia
来源
SCIENTIFIC REPORTS | 2024年 / 14卷 / 01期
关键词
Streamflow; Prediction; Deep learning; GCM; CMIP6;
D O I
10.1038/s41598-024-63989-7
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
This research was carried out to predict daily streamflow for the Swat River Basin, Pakistan through four deep learning (DL) models: Feed Forward Artificial Neural Networks (FFANN), Seasonal Artificial Neural Networks (SANN), Time Lag Artificial Neural Networks (TLANN) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) under two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) 585 and 245. Taylor Diagram, Random Forest, and Gradient Boosting techniques were used to select the best combination of General Circulation Models (GCMs) for Multi-Model Ensemble (MME) computation. MME was computed via the Random Forest technique for Maximum Temperature (Tmax), Minimum Temperature (Tmin), and precipitation for the aforementioned three techniques. The best MME for Tmax, Tmin, and precipitation was rendered by Compromise Programming. The DL models were trained and tested using observed precipitation and temperature as independent variables and discharge as dependent variables. The results of deep learning models were evaluated using statistical performance indicators such as root mean square error (RMSE), mean square error (MSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and coefficient of determination (R2). The TLANN demonstrated superior performance compared to the other models based on RMSE, MSE, MAE, and R2 during training (65.25 m3/s, 4256.97 m3/s, 46.793 m3/s and 0.7978) and testing (72.06 m3/s, 5192.95 m3/s, 51.363 m3/s and 0.7443) respectively. Subsequently, TLANN was utilized to make predictions based on MME of SSP245 and SSP585 scenarios for future streamflow until the year 2100. These results can be used for planning, management, and policy-making regarding water resources projects in the study area.
引用
下载
收藏
页数:26
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] LICOM Model Datasets for the CMIP6 Ocean Model Intercomparison Project
    Lin, Pengfei
    Yu, Zhipeng
    Liu, Hailong
    Yu, Yongqiang
    Li, Yiwen
    Jiang, Jirong
    Xue, Wei
    Chen, Kangjun
    Yang, Qian
    Zhao, Bowen
    Wei, Jilin
    Ding, Mengrong
    Sun, Zhikuo
    Wang, Yaqi
    Meng, Yao
    Zheng, Weipeng
    Ma, Jinfeng
    ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 2020, 37 (03) : 239 - 249
  • [22] The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP6
    Webb, Mark J.
    Andrews, Timothy
    Bodas-Salcedo, Alejandro
    Bony, Sandrine
    Bretherton, Christopher S.
    Chadwick, Robin
    Chepfer, Helene
    Douville, Herve
    Good, Peter
    Kay, Jennifer E.
    Klein, Stephen A.
    Marchand, Roger
    Medeiros, Brian
    Siebesma, A. Pier
    Skinner, Christopher B.
    Stevens, Bjorn
    Tselioudis, George
    Tsushima, Yoko
    Watanabe, Masahiro
    GEOSCIENTIFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT, 2017, 10 (01) : 359 - 384
  • [23] Antarctic Bottom Water and North Atlantic Deep Water in CMIP6 models
    Heuze, Celine
    OCEAN SCIENCE, 2021, 17 (01) : 59 - 90
  • [24] Southern Ocean polynyas in CMIP6 models
    Mohrmann, Martin
    Heuze, Celine
    Swart, Sebastiaan
    CRYOSPHERE, 2021, 15 (09): : 4281 - 4313
  • [25] Hadley cell expansion in CMIP6 models
    Grise, Kevin M.
    Davis, Sean M.
    ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 2020, 20 (09) : 5249 - 5268
  • [26] Underestimated MJO Variability in CMIP6 Models
    Le, Phong V. V.
    Guilloteau, Clement
    Mamalakis, Antonios
    Foufoula-Georgiou, Efi
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2021, 48 (12)
  • [27] Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project (ISMIP6) contribution to CMIP6
    Nowicki, Sophie M. J.
    Payne, Anthony
    Larour, Eric
    Seroussi, Helene
    Goelzer, Heiko
    Lipscomb, William
    Gregory, Jonathan
    Abe-Ouchi, Ayako
    Shepherd, Andrew
    GEOSCIENTIFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT, 2016, 9 (12) : 4521 - 4545
  • [28] Contributions to Polar Amplification in CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models
    Hahn, L. C.
    Armour, K. C.
    Zelinka, M. D.
    Bitz, C. M.
    Donohoe, A.
    FRONTIERS IN EARTH SCIENCE, 2021, 9
  • [29] Erratum to: LICOM Model Datasets for the CMIP6 Ocean Model Intercomparison Project
    Pengfei Lin
    Zipeng Yu
    Hailong Liu
    Yongqiang Yu
    Yiwen Li
    Jinrong Jiang
    Wei Xue
    Kangjun Chen
    Qian Yang
    Bowen Zhao
    Jilin Wei
    Mengrong Ding
    Zhikuo Sun
    Yaqi Wang
    Yao Meng
    Weipeng Zheng
    Jinfeng Ma
    Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 2020, 37 : 662 - 662
  • [30] The Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP): experimental protocol for CMIP6
    Pincus, Robert
    Forster, Piers M.
    Stevens, Bjorn
    GEOSCIENTIFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT, 2016, 9 (09) : 3447 - 3460