4.5 Article

Neural network river forecasting with multi-objective fully informed particle swarm optimization

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYDROINFORMATICS
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 99-113

Publisher

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/hydro.2014.116

Keywords

FIPS; multi-objective; neural network river forecasting; NNRF; particle swarm optimization; PSO

Funding

  1. Hong Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme
  2. Central Research Grant of Hong Kong Polytechnic University [G-U833]
  3. Research Grants Council (RGC) of Hong Kong

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this work, we suggest that the poorer results obtained with particle swarm optimization (PSO) in some previous studies should be attributed to the cross-validation scheme commonly employed to improve generalization of PSO-trained neural network river forecasting (NNRF) models. Cross-validation entails splitting the training dataset into two, and accepting particle position updates only if fitness improvements are concurrently measured on both subsets. The NNRF calibration process thus becomes a multi-objective (MO) optimization problem which is still addressed as a single-objective one. In our opinion, PSO cross-validated training should be carried out under an MO optimization framework instead. Therefore, in this work, we introduce a novel MO variant of the swarm optimization algorithm to train NNRF models for the prediction of future streamflow discharges in the Shenandoah River watershed, Virginia (USA). The case study comprises over 9,000 observations of both streamflow and rainfall observations, spanning a period of almost 25 years. The newly introduced MO fully informed particle swarm (MOFIPS) optimization algorithm is found to provide better performing models with respect to those developed using the standard PSO, as well as advanced gradient-based optimization techniques. These findings encourage the use of an MO approach to NNRF cross-validated training with swarm optimization.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available