4.7 Article

Challenges in Applying Machine Learning Models for Hydrological Inference: A Case Study for Flooding Events Across Germany

期刊

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
卷 56, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2019WR025924

关键词

machine learning; inference; floods

资金

  1. Helmholtz Association
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [HE-7028-1/2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Machine learning (ML) algorithms are being increasingly used in Earth and Environmental modeling studies owing to the ever-increasing availability of diverse data sets and computational resources as well as advancement in ML algorithms. Despite advances in their predictive accuracy, the usefulness of ML algorithms for inference remains elusive. In this study, we employ two popular ML algorithms, artificial neural networks and random forest, to analyze a large data set of flood events across Germany with the goals to analyze their predictive accuracy and their usability to provide insights to hydrologic system functioning. The results of the ML algorithms are contrasted against a parametric approach based on multiple linear regression. For analysis, we employ a model-agnostic framework named Permuted Feature Importance to derive the influence of models' predictors. This allows us to compare the results of different algorithms for the first time in the context of hydrology. Our main findings are that (1) the ML models achieve higher prediction accuracy than linear regression, (2) the results reflect basic hydrological principles, but (3) further inference is hindered by the heterogeneity of results across algorithms. Thus, we conclude that the problem of equifinality as known from classical hydrological modeling also exists for ML and severely hampers its potential for inference. To account for the observed problems, we propose that when employing ML for inference, this should be made by using multiple algorithms and multiple methods, of which the latter should be embedded in a cross-validation routine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据