Comparison of prediction performances between Box–Jenkins and Kalman filter models––Case of annual and monthly sreamflows in Algeria
The present study aims to investigate and to compare Box–Jenkins (BJ) and Kalman filter (KF) models to predict stream flows in northern Algeria. For this purpose, annual and monthly data of 10 hydrometric stations have been considered for application. The results with BJ models led to five Autoregre...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Desalination and water treatment 2016-08, Vol.57 (36), p.17095-17103 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 17103 |
---|---|
container_issue | 36 |
container_start_page | 17095 |
container_title | Desalination and water treatment |
container_volume | 57 |
creator | Boukharouba, Khadidja Kettab, Ahmed |
description | The present study aims to investigate and to compare Box–Jenkins (BJ) and Kalman filter (KF) models to predict stream flows in northern Algeria. For this purpose, annual and monthly data of 10 hydrometric stations have been considered for application. The results with BJ models led to five Autoregressive and integrated moving average (ARIMA) models for the annual streamflows, with an overall mean explained variance at 63% level, whereas for the monthly flows they led to 10 Seasonal Autoregressive and integrated moving average (SARIMA) models, with an overall mean explained variance around 75%. On the other hand, KF methodology led to two on-line operations, where multisite optimal annual and monthly predictions are obtained. The KF and BJ predictive performances are then compared via some statistical parameters of their prediction error. For both of annual and monthly scales, it is found that KF model performs better in predictions. For example, the mean prediction error for KF is 16 times smaller than the BJ models, the corresponding standard deviation, minimum and maximum values are respectively, 5, 6, and 3 times smaller than the BJ alternatives. This denotes the superiority of KF for the prediction of stream flows in northern Algeria. In addition, an eventual tendency of KF to the underestimation has also been noticed from the prediction error standard deviation illustration. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1080/19443994.2015.1109558 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1816024535</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1944398624030911</els_id><sourcerecordid>4046662941</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-d7097b781db3d7c4e93820c0ba79d2d722e2a70ce56cbded24583f09fe4d035b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc9OHSEYxSdNTWqsj9CExE0398qf4QKrRm9aWzVxo2vCwDcVy8AU5lbdue7WN_RJ5Ho1MW4kJHyQ3zkJ5zTNF4LnBEu8T1TbMqXaOcWEzwnBinP5odlev8-YkouPr-ZPzW4pV7gu3gre0u3m_zINo8m-pIhSj8YMztvJ19sIuU95MNFCQR1M1wARHaabh7v7Y4h_fCzIRIdOTKgM6n2YIKMhOQilInUvTYG1p4lxZcITPKQ4XYZbVDKYoQ_puiAf0UH4Ddmbz81Wb0KB3edzp7n48f18-XN2enb0a3lwOrOMk2nmBFaiE5K4jjlhW1BMUmxxZ4Ry1AlKgRqBLfCF7Rw42nLJeqx6aB1mvGM7zdeN75jT3xWUSQ--WAjBREirookkC1xVjL-PClXzloKriu69Qa_SKsf6kUpJQTChRFSKbyibU6kp9HrMfjD5VhOs133qlz71uk_93GfVfdvoarrwz0PWxXqo1TifwU7aJf-OwyOcraqP</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1787101217</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of prediction performances between Box–Jenkins and Kalman filter models––Case of annual and monthly sreamflows in Algeria</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Boukharouba, Khadidja ; Kettab, Ahmed</creator><creatorcontrib>Boukharouba, Khadidja ; Kettab, Ahmed</creatorcontrib><description>The present study aims to investigate and to compare Box–Jenkins (BJ) and Kalman filter (KF) models to predict stream flows in northern Algeria. For this purpose, annual and monthly data of 10 hydrometric stations have been considered for application. The results with BJ models led to five Autoregressive and integrated moving average (ARIMA) models for the annual streamflows, with an overall mean explained variance at 63% level, whereas for the monthly flows they led to 10 Seasonal Autoregressive and integrated moving average (SARIMA) models, with an overall mean explained variance around 75%. On the other hand, KF methodology led to two on-line operations, where multisite optimal annual and monthly predictions are obtained. The KF and BJ predictive performances are then compared via some statistical parameters of their prediction error. For both of annual and monthly scales, it is found that KF model performs better in predictions. For example, the mean prediction error for KF is 16 times smaller than the BJ models, the corresponding standard deviation, minimum and maximum values are respectively, 5, 6, and 3 times smaller than the BJ alternatives. This denotes the superiority of KF for the prediction of stream flows in northern Algeria. In addition, an eventual tendency of KF to the underestimation has also been noticed from the prediction error standard deviation illustration.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1944-3986</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1944-3994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1944-3986</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/19443994.2015.1109558</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Abingdon: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Algeria ; ARIMA ; Economic models ; Errors ; Hydrometric stations ; Kalman filter ; Kalman filters ; Mathematical models ; On-line systems ; Prediction error ; SARIMA ; Standard deviation ; Stream discharge ; Stream flow ; Stream flows ; Variance ; Water runoff</subject><ispartof>Desalination and water treatment, 2016-08, Vol.57 (36), p.17095-17103</ispartof><rights>2015 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2015 Balaban Desalination Publications. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-d7097b781db3d7c4e93820c0ba79d2d722e2a70ce56cbded24583f09fe4d035b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Boukharouba, Khadidja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kettab, Ahmed</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of prediction performances between Box–Jenkins and Kalman filter models––Case of annual and monthly sreamflows in Algeria</title><title>Desalination and water treatment</title><description>The present study aims to investigate and to compare Box–Jenkins (BJ) and Kalman filter (KF) models to predict stream flows in northern Algeria. For this purpose, annual and monthly data of 10 hydrometric stations have been considered for application. The results with BJ models led to five Autoregressive and integrated moving average (ARIMA) models for the annual streamflows, with an overall mean explained variance at 63% level, whereas for the monthly flows they led to 10 Seasonal Autoregressive and integrated moving average (SARIMA) models, with an overall mean explained variance around 75%. On the other hand, KF methodology led to two on-line operations, where multisite optimal annual and monthly predictions are obtained. The KF and BJ predictive performances are then compared via some statistical parameters of their prediction error. For both of annual and monthly scales, it is found that KF model performs better in predictions. For example, the mean prediction error for KF is 16 times smaller than the BJ models, the corresponding standard deviation, minimum and maximum values are respectively, 5, 6, and 3 times smaller than the BJ alternatives. This denotes the superiority of KF for the prediction of stream flows in northern Algeria. In addition, an eventual tendency of KF to the underestimation has also been noticed from the prediction error standard deviation illustration.</description><subject>Algeria</subject><subject>ARIMA</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Errors</subject><subject>Hydrometric stations</subject><subject>Kalman filter</subject><subject>Kalman filters</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>On-line systems</subject><subject>Prediction error</subject><subject>SARIMA</subject><subject>Standard deviation</subject><subject>Stream discharge</subject><subject>Stream flow</subject><subject>Stream flows</subject><subject>Variance</subject><subject>Water runoff</subject><issn>1944-3986</issn><issn>1944-3994</issn><issn>1944-3986</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkc9OHSEYxSdNTWqsj9CExE0398qf4QKrRm9aWzVxo2vCwDcVy8AU5lbdue7WN_RJ5Ho1MW4kJHyQ3zkJ5zTNF4LnBEu8T1TbMqXaOcWEzwnBinP5odlev8-YkouPr-ZPzW4pV7gu3gre0u3m_zINo8m-pIhSj8YMztvJ19sIuU95MNFCQR1M1wARHaabh7v7Y4h_fCzIRIdOTKgM6n2YIKMhOQilInUvTYG1p4lxZcITPKQ4XYZbVDKYoQ_puiAf0UH4Ddmbz81Wb0KB3edzp7n48f18-XN2enb0a3lwOrOMk2nmBFaiE5K4jjlhW1BMUmxxZ4Ry1AlKgRqBLfCF7Rw42nLJeqx6aB1mvGM7zdeN75jT3xWUSQ--WAjBREirookkC1xVjL-PClXzloKriu69Qa_SKsf6kUpJQTChRFSKbyibU6kp9HrMfjD5VhOs133qlz71uk_93GfVfdvoarrwz0PWxXqo1TifwU7aJf-OwyOcraqP</recordid><startdate>201608</startdate><enddate>201608</enddate><creator>Boukharouba, Khadidja</creator><creator>Kettab, Ahmed</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201608</creationdate><title>Comparison of prediction performances between Box–Jenkins and Kalman filter models––Case of annual and monthly sreamflows in Algeria</title><author>Boukharouba, Khadidja ; Kettab, Ahmed</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-d7097b781db3d7c4e93820c0ba79d2d722e2a70ce56cbded24583f09fe4d035b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Algeria</topic><topic>ARIMA</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Errors</topic><topic>Hydrometric stations</topic><topic>Kalman filter</topic><topic>Kalman filters</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>On-line systems</topic><topic>Prediction error</topic><topic>SARIMA</topic><topic>Standard deviation</topic><topic>Stream discharge</topic><topic>Stream flow</topic><topic>Stream flows</topic><topic>Variance</topic><topic>Water runoff</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Boukharouba, Khadidja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kettab, Ahmed</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Desalination and water treatment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Boukharouba, Khadidja</au><au>Kettab, Ahmed</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of prediction performances between Box–Jenkins and Kalman filter models––Case of annual and monthly sreamflows in Algeria</atitle><jtitle>Desalination and water treatment</jtitle><date>2016-08</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>57</volume><issue>36</issue><spage>17095</spage><epage>17103</epage><pages>17095-17103</pages><issn>1944-3986</issn><issn>1944-3994</issn><eissn>1944-3986</eissn><abstract>The present study aims to investigate and to compare Box–Jenkins (BJ) and Kalman filter (KF) models to predict stream flows in northern Algeria. For this purpose, annual and monthly data of 10 hydrometric stations have been considered for application. The results with BJ models led to five Autoregressive and integrated moving average (ARIMA) models for the annual streamflows, with an overall mean explained variance at 63% level, whereas for the monthly flows they led to 10 Seasonal Autoregressive and integrated moving average (SARIMA) models, with an overall mean explained variance around 75%. On the other hand, KF methodology led to two on-line operations, where multisite optimal annual and monthly predictions are obtained. The KF and BJ predictive performances are then compared via some statistical parameters of their prediction error. For both of annual and monthly scales, it is found that KF model performs better in predictions. For example, the mean prediction error for KF is 16 times smaller than the BJ models, the corresponding standard deviation, minimum and maximum values are respectively, 5, 6, and 3 times smaller than the BJ alternatives. This denotes the superiority of KF for the prediction of stream flows in northern Algeria. In addition, an eventual tendency of KF to the underestimation has also been noticed from the prediction error standard deviation illustration.</abstract><cop>Abingdon</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.1080/19443994.2015.1109558</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1944-3986 |
ispartof | Desalination and water treatment, 2016-08, Vol.57 (36), p.17095-17103 |
issn | 1944-3986 1944-3994 1944-3986 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1816024535 |
source | Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Algeria ARIMA Economic models Errors Hydrometric stations Kalman filter Kalman filters Mathematical models On-line systems Prediction error SARIMA Standard deviation Stream discharge Stream flow Stream flows Variance Water runoff |
title | Comparison of prediction performances between Box–Jenkins and Kalman filter models––Case of annual and monthly sreamflows in Algeria |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T03%3A33%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20prediction%20performances%20between%20Box%E2%80%93Jenkins%20and%20Kalman%20filter%20models%E2%80%93%E2%80%93Case%20of%20annual%20and%20monthly%20sreamflows%20in%20Algeria&rft.jtitle=Desalination%20and%20water%20treatment&rft.au=Boukharouba,%20Khadidja&rft.date=2016-08&rft.volume=57&rft.issue=36&rft.spage=17095&rft.epage=17103&rft.pages=17095-17103&rft.issn=1944-3986&rft.eissn=1944-3986&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/19443994.2015.1109558&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4046662941%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1787101217&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S1944398624030911&rfr_iscdi=true |