CNN vs. LSTM: A Comparative Study of Hourly Precipitation Intensity Prediction as a Key Factor in Flood Forecasting Frameworks

IF 2.5 4区 地球科学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Atmosphere Pub Date : 2024-09-06 DOI:10.3390/atmos15091082
Isa Ebtehaj, Hossein Bonakdari
{"title":"CNN vs. LSTM: A Comparative Study of Hourly Precipitation Intensity Prediction as a Key Factor in Flood Forecasting Frameworks","authors":"Isa Ebtehaj, Hossein Bonakdari","doi":"10.3390/atmos15091082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Accurate precipitation intensity forecasting is crucial for effective flood management and early warning systems. This study evaluates the performances of convolutional neural network (CNN) and long short-term memory (LSTM) models in predicting hourly precipitation intensity using data from Sainte Catherine de la Jacques Cartier station near Québec City. The models predict precipitation levels from one to six hours ahead, which are categorized into slight, moderate, heavy, and very heavy precipitation intensities. Our methodology involved gathering hourly precipitation data, defining input combinations for multistep ahead forecasting, and employing CNN and LSTM models. The performances of these models were assessed through qualitative and quantitative evaluations. The key findings reveal that the LSTM model excelled in the short-term (1HA to 2HA) and long-term (3HA to 6HA) forecasting, with higher R2 (up to 0.999) and NSE values (up to 0.999), while the CNN model was more computationally efficient, with lower AICc values (e.g., −16,041.1 for 1HA). The error analysis shows that the CNN demonstrated higher precision in the heavy and very heavy categories, with a lower relative error, whereas the LSTM performed better for the slight and moderate categories. The LSTM outperformed the CNN in minor- and high-intensity events, but the CNN exhibited a better performance for significant precipitation events with shorter lead times. Overall, both models were adequate, with the LSTM providing better accuracy for extended forecasts and the CNN offering efficiency for immediate predictions, highlighting their complementary roles in enhancing early warning systems and flood management strategies.","PeriodicalId":8580,"journal":{"name":"Atmosphere","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Atmosphere","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15091082","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accurate precipitation intensity forecasting is crucial for effective flood management and early warning systems. This study evaluates the performances of convolutional neural network (CNN) and long short-term memory (LSTM) models in predicting hourly precipitation intensity using data from Sainte Catherine de la Jacques Cartier station near Québec City. The models predict precipitation levels from one to six hours ahead, which are categorized into slight, moderate, heavy, and very heavy precipitation intensities. Our methodology involved gathering hourly precipitation data, defining input combinations for multistep ahead forecasting, and employing CNN and LSTM models. The performances of these models were assessed through qualitative and quantitative evaluations. The key findings reveal that the LSTM model excelled in the short-term (1HA to 2HA) and long-term (3HA to 6HA) forecasting, with higher R2 (up to 0.999) and NSE values (up to 0.999), while the CNN model was more computationally efficient, with lower AICc values (e.g., −16,041.1 for 1HA). The error analysis shows that the CNN demonstrated higher precision in the heavy and very heavy categories, with a lower relative error, whereas the LSTM performed better for the slight and moderate categories. The LSTM outperformed the CNN in minor- and high-intensity events, but the CNN exhibited a better performance for significant precipitation events with shorter lead times. Overall, both models were adequate, with the LSTM providing better accuracy for extended forecasts and the CNN offering efficiency for immediate predictions, highlighting their complementary roles in enhancing early warning systems and flood management strategies.
CNN 与 LSTM:作为洪水预报框架关键因素的每小时降水强度预测比较研究
准确的降水强度预测对于有效的洪水管理和预警系统至关重要。本研究利用魁北克市附近 Sainte Catherine de la Jacques Cartier 站的数据,评估了卷积神经网络 (CNN) 和长短期记忆 (LSTM) 模型在预测每小时降水强度方面的性能。这些模型预测了未来 1 到 6 小时的降水量,降水强度分为轻微、中等、大和非常大。我们的方法包括收集每小时降水量数据,定义多步提前预报的输入组合,以及采用 CNN 和 LSTM 模型。通过定性和定量评估,对这些模型的性能进行了评估。主要研究结果表明,LSTM 模型在短期(1HA 至 2HA)和长期(3HA 至 6HA)预报中表现出色,具有较高的 R2 值(高达 0.999)和 NSE 值(高达 0.999),而 CNN 模型的计算效率更高,AICc 值更低(例如,1HA 的 AICc 值为 -16,041.1)。误差分析表明,CNN 在重度和极重度类别中表现出更高的精度和更低的相对误差,而 LSTM 在轻度和中度类别中表现更好。在小强度和大强度事件中,LSTM 的表现优于 CNN,但在前置时间较短的重大降水事件中,CNN 的表现更好。总体而言,两种模型都能满足要求,其中 LSTM 在扩展预测方面的准确性更高,而 CNN 在即时预测方面的效率更高,这凸显了它们在加强预警系统和洪水管理策略方面的互补作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Atmosphere
Atmosphere METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
13.80%
发文量
1769
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Atmosphere (ISSN 2073-4433) is an international and cross-disciplinary scholarly journal of scientific studies related to the atmosphere. It publishes reviews, regular research papers, communications and short notes, and there is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodical details must be provided for research articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信