Comparing linear and non-linear data-driven approaches in monthly river flow prediction, based on the models SARIMA, LSSVM, ANFIS, and GMDH
River flow variations directly affect the hydro-climatological, environmental, and ecological characteristics of a region. Therefore, an accurate prediction of river flow can critically be important for water managers and planners. The present study aims to compare different data-driven models in pr...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Environmental science and pollution research international 2022-03, Vol.29 (15), p.21935-21954 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 21954 |
---|---|
container_issue | 15 |
container_start_page | 21935 |
container_title | Environmental science and pollution research international |
container_volume | 29 |
creator | Khodakhah, Hedieh Aghelpour, Pouya Hamedi, Zahra |
description | River flow variations directly affect the hydro-climatological, environmental, and ecological characteristics of a region. Therefore, an accurate prediction of river flow can critically be important for water managers and planners. The present study aims to compare different data-driven models in predicting monthly flow. Two river catchments located in the Guilan province in Iran, where rivers play an essential role in agricultural productions (mainly rice), are studied. The monthly river flow dataset was provided by Guilan Regional Water Authority during 1986–2015. The models are derived from two different numerical types of stochastic and machine learning (ML) models. The stochastic model is seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average (SARIMA), and the MLs are least square support vector machine (LSSVM), adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), and group method of data handling (GMDH). The inputs were selected by autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation functions (ACF and PACF) from the flow rates of the previous months. The data was divided into 75% of training and 25% of testing phases, and then the mentioned models were implemented. Predictions were evaluated by the criteria of root mean square error (RMSE), normalized RMSE (NRMSE), and Nash Sutcliff (NS) coefficient. According to the calculated values of different criteria during the test phase, RMSE = 1.138 cms, NRMSE = 0.109, and NS = 0.826, it can be concluded that the SARIMA model was superior to its ML competitors. Among the ML models, GMDH had the best performance (by RMSE = 1.290 cms, NRMSE = 0.124, and NS = 0.777) because it has more optimization parameters and sample space for network make-up. The models were also evaluated in hydrological drought conditions of both rivers. It was resulted that the rivers’ flow can be well predicted in drought conditions by using these models, especially the SARIMA stochastic model. According to the NRMSE values (ranged between 0.1 and 0.2), the accuracy of predictions is evaluated in the appropriate range, and the present study shows promising results of the current approaches. Consequently, a comparison between the performance of linear stochastic models and complex black-box MLs, reveals that linear stochastic models are more suitable for the current region’s monthly river flow prediction. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11356-021-17443-0 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2597496533</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2640561207</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-d95dbfe6835af214304663a7585ce4c94eb491e1354e2f1a5921ad37e4675d753</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc9uEzEQhy1ERdPCC3BAlrhwiKn_e_cYBdpGSopEgOvKWc-SrXbtrb2h6jPw0jhNoBIHOFkjf_MbzXwIvWb0PaPUXCTGhNKEckaYkVIQ-gxNmGaSGFmWz9GEllISJqQ8RWcp3VLKacnNC3QqpDFCFWqCfs5DP9jY-u-4az3YiK132AdPjqWzoyUutj_AYzsMMdh6Cwm3HvfBj9vuAe__Im66cI-HCK6txzb4Kd7YBA4Hj8ctZNZBl_B69nmxmk3xcr3-tpri2c3lYj19nHi1-nD9Ep00tkvw6vieo6-XH7_Mr8ny09ViPluSWtJiJK5UbtOALoSyDWdSUKm1sCbvU4OsSwkbWTLIt5HAG2ZVyZl1woDURjmjxDl6d8jN29ztII1V36Yaus56CLtUcS2LQhmp-f9RVeZbayVERt_-hd6GXfR5kX0gVZpxajLFD1QdQ0oRmmqIbW_jQ8VotbdaHaxW2Wr1aLWiuenNMXq36cH9afmtMQPiAKRhrxLi0-x_xP4CEbGqJA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2640561207</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing linear and non-linear data-driven approaches in monthly river flow prediction, based on the models SARIMA, LSSVM, ANFIS, and GMDH</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Khodakhah, Hedieh ; Aghelpour, Pouya ; Hamedi, Zahra</creator><creatorcontrib>Khodakhah, Hedieh ; Aghelpour, Pouya ; Hamedi, Zahra</creatorcontrib><description>River flow variations directly affect the hydro-climatological, environmental, and ecological characteristics of a region. Therefore, an accurate prediction of river flow can critically be important for water managers and planners. The present study aims to compare different data-driven models in predicting monthly flow. Two river catchments located in the Guilan province in Iran, where rivers play an essential role in agricultural productions (mainly rice), are studied. The monthly river flow dataset was provided by Guilan Regional Water Authority during 1986–2015. The models are derived from two different numerical types of stochastic and machine learning (ML) models. The stochastic model is seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average (SARIMA), and the MLs are least square support vector machine (LSSVM), adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), and group method of data handling (GMDH). The inputs were selected by autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation functions (ACF and PACF) from the flow rates of the previous months. The data was divided into 75% of training and 25% of testing phases, and then the mentioned models were implemented. Predictions were evaluated by the criteria of root mean square error (RMSE), normalized RMSE (NRMSE), and Nash Sutcliff (NS) coefficient. According to the calculated values of different criteria during the test phase, RMSE = 1.138 cms, NRMSE = 0.109, and NS = 0.826, it can be concluded that the SARIMA model was superior to its ML competitors. Among the ML models, GMDH had the best performance (by RMSE = 1.290 cms, NRMSE = 0.124, and NS = 0.777) because it has more optimization parameters and sample space for network make-up. The models were also evaluated in hydrological drought conditions of both rivers. It was resulted that the rivers’ flow can be well predicted in drought conditions by using these models, especially the SARIMA stochastic model. According to the NRMSE values (ranged between 0.1 and 0.2), the accuracy of predictions is evaluated in the appropriate range, and the present study shows promising results of the current approaches. Consequently, a comparison between the performance of linear stochastic models and complex black-box MLs, reveals that linear stochastic models are more suitable for the current region’s monthly river flow prediction.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0944-1344</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1614-7499</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-17443-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34773585</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Adaptive systems ; Aquatic Pollution ; Artificial neural networks ; Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution ; autocorrelation ; Autocorrelation functions ; Autoregressive models ; Catchments ; Criteria ; data collection ; Drought ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Ecotoxicology ; Environment ; Environmental Chemistry ; Environmental Health ; Environmental science ; Flow rates ; Flow velocity ; Fuzzy logic ; Group method of data handling ; Hydrology ; Iran ; Machine learning ; Optimization ; prediction ; Predictions ; Research Article ; rice ; River catchments ; River flow ; Rivers ; Root-mean-square errors ; Stochastic models ; stochastic processes ; Stream flow ; Support vector machines ; Waste Water Technology ; Water Management ; Water Pollution Control ; Water utilities</subject><ispartof>Environmental science and pollution research international, 2022-03, Vol.29 (15), p.21935-21954</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021</rights><rights>2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-d95dbfe6835af214304663a7585ce4c94eb491e1354e2f1a5921ad37e4675d753</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-d95dbfe6835af214304663a7585ce4c94eb491e1354e2f1a5921ad37e4675d753</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5640-865X ; 0000-0002-2798-1887 ; 0000-0001-5279-500X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11356-021-17443-0$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11356-021-17443-0$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34773585$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Khodakhah, Hedieh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aghelpour, Pouya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamedi, Zahra</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing linear and non-linear data-driven approaches in monthly river flow prediction, based on the models SARIMA, LSSVM, ANFIS, and GMDH</title><title>Environmental science and pollution research international</title><addtitle>Environ Sci Pollut Res</addtitle><addtitle>Environ Sci Pollut Res Int</addtitle><description>River flow variations directly affect the hydro-climatological, environmental, and ecological characteristics of a region. Therefore, an accurate prediction of river flow can critically be important for water managers and planners. The present study aims to compare different data-driven models in predicting monthly flow. Two river catchments located in the Guilan province in Iran, where rivers play an essential role in agricultural productions (mainly rice), are studied. The monthly river flow dataset was provided by Guilan Regional Water Authority during 1986–2015. The models are derived from two different numerical types of stochastic and machine learning (ML) models. The stochastic model is seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average (SARIMA), and the MLs are least square support vector machine (LSSVM), adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), and group method of data handling (GMDH). The inputs were selected by autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation functions (ACF and PACF) from the flow rates of the previous months. The data was divided into 75% of training and 25% of testing phases, and then the mentioned models were implemented. Predictions were evaluated by the criteria of root mean square error (RMSE), normalized RMSE (NRMSE), and Nash Sutcliff (NS) coefficient. According to the calculated values of different criteria during the test phase, RMSE = 1.138 cms, NRMSE = 0.109, and NS = 0.826, it can be concluded that the SARIMA model was superior to its ML competitors. Among the ML models, GMDH had the best performance (by RMSE = 1.290 cms, NRMSE = 0.124, and NS = 0.777) because it has more optimization parameters and sample space for network make-up. The models were also evaluated in hydrological drought conditions of both rivers. It was resulted that the rivers’ flow can be well predicted in drought conditions by using these models, especially the SARIMA stochastic model. According to the NRMSE values (ranged between 0.1 and 0.2), the accuracy of predictions is evaluated in the appropriate range, and the present study shows promising results of the current approaches. Consequently, a comparison between the performance of linear stochastic models and complex black-box MLs, reveals that linear stochastic models are more suitable for the current region’s monthly river flow prediction.</description><subject>Adaptive systems</subject><subject>Aquatic Pollution</subject><subject>Artificial neural networks</subject><subject>Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution</subject><subject>autocorrelation</subject><subject>Autocorrelation functions</subject><subject>Autoregressive models</subject><subject>Catchments</subject><subject>Criteria</subject><subject>data collection</subject><subject>Drought</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Ecotoxicology</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Environmental Chemistry</subject><subject>Environmental Health</subject><subject>Environmental science</subject><subject>Flow rates</subject><subject>Flow velocity</subject><subject>Fuzzy logic</subject><subject>Group method of data handling</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Iran</subject><subject>Machine learning</subject><subject>Optimization</subject><subject>prediction</subject><subject>Predictions</subject><subject>Research Article</subject><subject>rice</subject><subject>River catchments</subject><subject>River flow</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>Root-mean-square errors</subject><subject>Stochastic models</subject><subject>stochastic processes</subject><subject>Stream flow</subject><subject>Support vector machines</subject><subject>Waste Water Technology</subject><subject>Water Management</subject><subject>Water Pollution Control</subject><subject>Water utilities</subject><issn>0944-1344</issn><issn>1614-7499</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc9uEzEQhy1ERdPCC3BAlrhwiKn_e_cYBdpGSopEgOvKWc-SrXbtrb2h6jPw0jhNoBIHOFkjf_MbzXwIvWb0PaPUXCTGhNKEckaYkVIQ-gxNmGaSGFmWz9GEllISJqQ8RWcp3VLKacnNC3QqpDFCFWqCfs5DP9jY-u-4az3YiK132AdPjqWzoyUutj_AYzsMMdh6Cwm3HvfBj9vuAe__Im66cI-HCK6txzb4Kd7YBA4Hj8ctZNZBl_B69nmxmk3xcr3-tpri2c3lYj19nHi1-nD9Ep00tkvw6vieo6-XH7_Mr8ny09ViPluSWtJiJK5UbtOALoSyDWdSUKm1sCbvU4OsSwkbWTLIt5HAG2ZVyZl1woDURjmjxDl6d8jN29ztII1V36Yaus56CLtUcS2LQhmp-f9RVeZbayVERt_-hd6GXfR5kX0gVZpxajLFD1QdQ0oRmmqIbW_jQ8VotbdaHaxW2Wr1aLWiuenNMXq36cH9afmtMQPiAKRhrxLi0-x_xP4CEbGqJA</recordid><startdate>20220301</startdate><enddate>20220301</enddate><creator>Khodakhah, Hedieh</creator><creator>Aghelpour, Pouya</creator><creator>Hamedi, Zahra</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TV</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5640-865X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2798-1887</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5279-500X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220301</creationdate><title>Comparing linear and non-linear data-driven approaches in monthly river flow prediction, based on the models SARIMA, LSSVM, ANFIS, and GMDH</title><author>Khodakhah, Hedieh ; Aghelpour, Pouya ; Hamedi, Zahra</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-d95dbfe6835af214304663a7585ce4c94eb491e1354e2f1a5921ad37e4675d753</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Adaptive systems</topic><topic>Aquatic Pollution</topic><topic>Artificial neural networks</topic><topic>Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution</topic><topic>autocorrelation</topic><topic>Autocorrelation functions</topic><topic>Autoregressive models</topic><topic>Catchments</topic><topic>Criteria</topic><topic>data collection</topic><topic>Drought</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Ecotoxicology</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Environmental Chemistry</topic><topic>Environmental Health</topic><topic>Environmental science</topic><topic>Flow rates</topic><topic>Flow velocity</topic><topic>Fuzzy logic</topic><topic>Group method of data handling</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Iran</topic><topic>Machine learning</topic><topic>Optimization</topic><topic>prediction</topic><topic>Predictions</topic><topic>Research Article</topic><topic>rice</topic><topic>River catchments</topic><topic>River flow</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>Root-mean-square errors</topic><topic>Stochastic models</topic><topic>stochastic processes</topic><topic>Stream flow</topic><topic>Support vector machines</topic><topic>Waste Water Technology</topic><topic>Water Management</topic><topic>Water Pollution Control</topic><topic>Water utilities</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Khodakhah, Hedieh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aghelpour, Pouya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamedi, Zahra</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Environmental science and pollution research international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Khodakhah, Hedieh</au><au>Aghelpour, Pouya</au><au>Hamedi, Zahra</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing linear and non-linear data-driven approaches in monthly river flow prediction, based on the models SARIMA, LSSVM, ANFIS, and GMDH</atitle><jtitle>Environmental science and pollution research international</jtitle><stitle>Environ Sci Pollut Res</stitle><addtitle>Environ Sci Pollut Res Int</addtitle><date>2022-03-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>15</issue><spage>21935</spage><epage>21954</epage><pages>21935-21954</pages><issn>0944-1344</issn><eissn>1614-7499</eissn><abstract>River flow variations directly affect the hydro-climatological, environmental, and ecological characteristics of a region. Therefore, an accurate prediction of river flow can critically be important for water managers and planners. The present study aims to compare different data-driven models in predicting monthly flow. Two river catchments located in the Guilan province in Iran, where rivers play an essential role in agricultural productions (mainly rice), are studied. The monthly river flow dataset was provided by Guilan Regional Water Authority during 1986–2015. The models are derived from two different numerical types of stochastic and machine learning (ML) models. The stochastic model is seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average (SARIMA), and the MLs are least square support vector machine (LSSVM), adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), and group method of data handling (GMDH). The inputs were selected by autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation functions (ACF and PACF) from the flow rates of the previous months. The data was divided into 75% of training and 25% of testing phases, and then the mentioned models were implemented. Predictions were evaluated by the criteria of root mean square error (RMSE), normalized RMSE (NRMSE), and Nash Sutcliff (NS) coefficient. According to the calculated values of different criteria during the test phase, RMSE = 1.138 cms, NRMSE = 0.109, and NS = 0.826, it can be concluded that the SARIMA model was superior to its ML competitors. Among the ML models, GMDH had the best performance (by RMSE = 1.290 cms, NRMSE = 0.124, and NS = 0.777) because it has more optimization parameters and sample space for network make-up. The models were also evaluated in hydrological drought conditions of both rivers. It was resulted that the rivers’ flow can be well predicted in drought conditions by using these models, especially the SARIMA stochastic model. According to the NRMSE values (ranged between 0.1 and 0.2), the accuracy of predictions is evaluated in the appropriate range, and the present study shows promising results of the current approaches. Consequently, a comparison between the performance of linear stochastic models and complex black-box MLs, reveals that linear stochastic models are more suitable for the current region’s monthly river flow prediction.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>34773585</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11356-021-17443-0</doi><tpages>20</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5640-865X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2798-1887</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5279-500X</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0944-1344 |
ispartof | Environmental science and pollution research international, 2022-03, Vol.29 (15), p.21935-21954 |
issn | 0944-1344 1614-7499 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2597496533 |
source | Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
subjects | Adaptive systems Aquatic Pollution Artificial neural networks Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution autocorrelation Autocorrelation functions Autoregressive models Catchments Criteria data collection Drought Earth and Environmental Science Ecotoxicology Environment Environmental Chemistry Environmental Health Environmental science Flow rates Flow velocity Fuzzy logic Group method of data handling Hydrology Iran Machine learning Optimization prediction Predictions Research Article rice River catchments River flow Rivers Root-mean-square errors Stochastic models stochastic processes Stream flow Support vector machines Waste Water Technology Water Management Water Pollution Control Water utilities |
title | Comparing linear and non-linear data-driven approaches in monthly river flow prediction, based on the models SARIMA, LSSVM, ANFIS, and GMDH |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T15%3A41%3A42IST&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=Comparing%20linear%20and%20non-linear%20data-driven%20approaches%20in%20monthly%20river%20flow%20prediction,%20based%20on%20the%20models%20SARIMA,%20LSSVM,%20ANFIS,%20and%20GMDH&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20science%20and%20pollution%20research%20international&rft.au=Khodakhah,%20Hedieh&rft.date=2022-03-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=15&rft.spage=21935&rft.epage=21954&rft.pages=21935-21954&rft.issn=0944-1344&rft.eissn=1614-7499&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11356-021-17443-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2640561207%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=2640561207&rft_id=info:pmid/34773585&rfr_iscdi=true |