Rainfall frequency and uncertainty analysis in arid regions using machine learning and statistical distribution models based on a 91-year rainfall record.

IF 4.9 2区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Mohammed Hagage
{"title":"Rainfall frequency and uncertainty analysis in arid regions using machine learning and statistical distribution models based on a 91-year rainfall record.","authors":"Mohammed Hagage","doi":"10.1038/s41598-026-68681-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Accurate estimation of rainfall depths associated with standard return periods is fundamental for hydraulic design, flood risk assessment, and water resources management, particularly in arid regions. Statistical extreme value distributions have long been the standard approach for rainfall frequency analysis, whereas machine learning (ML) has recently emerged as a potential alternative. This study presents a comprehensive comparison between twenty-five statistical distribution models and three supervised ML regressors-Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), and Extreme Gradient Boosting Regressor (XGBR)-for Annual Maximum Daily Rainfall (AMDR) frequency analysis using a 91-year record (1931-2021) from the Suez meteorological station, Egypt. Prior to frequency analysis, the AMDR series was verified to satisfy the assumptions of stationarity and serial independence using the Mann-Kendall test, Sen's slope estimator, and Lag-1 autocorrelation analysis. Statistical distribution models were implemented in HEC-SSP using Weibull plotting positions, whereas the ML models were developed in Python using exceedance probability as the sole predictor to enable a direct and consistent comparison with statistical frequency models. Model performance was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R<sup>2</sup>), mean squared error (MSE), root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE), while predictive uncertainty was quantified using 90% bootstrap confidence intervals. The results demonstrate that statistical distribution models consistently outperformed the ML regressors across all performance metrics. The Generalized Extreme Value distribution fitted using Maximum Likelihood Estimation (GEVMLE) achieved the highest predictive performance (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.968; RMSE = 1.512 mm), followed by GEVLM and GLLM. In contrast, the ML models exhibited substantially lower predictive accuracy (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.280 for RF, 0.258 for XGBR, and 0.087 for SVM) and showed limited capability for extrapolating rainfall extremes beyond the observed data range at longer return periods (T ≥ 25 years). The ML models also produced comparatively narrow confidence intervals, reflecting the limited variability represented within the training domain, whereas the GEV-based statistical models provided more realistic uncertainty estimates for extreme rainfall quantiles. Overall, the findings indicate that extreme value distributions, particularly the GEV models, remain more robust than ML regressors for rainfall frequency analysis when only long-term single-variable rainfall records are available. GEVMLE is therefore recommended for rainfall frequency analysis at the Suez station and similar arid coastal environments. Future research should investigate hybrid frameworks that integrate extreme value theory with machine learning using multi-variable climatic predictors to improve extrapolation capability and uncertainty representation.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13578317/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-68681-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accurate estimation of rainfall depths associated with standard return periods is fundamental for hydraulic design, flood risk assessment, and water resources management, particularly in arid regions. Statistical extreme value distributions have long been the standard approach for rainfall frequency analysis, whereas machine learning (ML) has recently emerged as a potential alternative. This study presents a comprehensive comparison between twenty-five statistical distribution models and three supervised ML regressors-Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), and Extreme Gradient Boosting Regressor (XGBR)-for Annual Maximum Daily Rainfall (AMDR) frequency analysis using a 91-year record (1931-2021) from the Suez meteorological station, Egypt. Prior to frequency analysis, the AMDR series was verified to satisfy the assumptions of stationarity and serial independence using the Mann-Kendall test, Sen's slope estimator, and Lag-1 autocorrelation analysis. Statistical distribution models were implemented in HEC-SSP using Weibull plotting positions, whereas the ML models were developed in Python using exceedance probability as the sole predictor to enable a direct and consistent comparison with statistical frequency models. Model performance was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R2), mean squared error (MSE), root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE), while predictive uncertainty was quantified using 90% bootstrap confidence intervals. The results demonstrate that statistical distribution models consistently outperformed the ML regressors across all performance metrics. The Generalized Extreme Value distribution fitted using Maximum Likelihood Estimation (GEVMLE) achieved the highest predictive performance (R2 = 0.968; RMSE = 1.512 mm), followed by GEVLM and GLLM. In contrast, the ML models exhibited substantially lower predictive accuracy (R2 = 0.280 for RF, 0.258 for XGBR, and 0.087 for SVM) and showed limited capability for extrapolating rainfall extremes beyond the observed data range at longer return periods (T ≥ 25 years). The ML models also produced comparatively narrow confidence intervals, reflecting the limited variability represented within the training domain, whereas the GEV-based statistical models provided more realistic uncertainty estimates for extreme rainfall quantiles. Overall, the findings indicate that extreme value distributions, particularly the GEV models, remain more robust than ML regressors for rainfall frequency analysis when only long-term single-variable rainfall records are available. GEVMLE is therefore recommended for rainfall frequency analysis at the Suez station and similar arid coastal environments. Future research should investigate hybrid frameworks that integrate extreme value theory with machine learning using multi-variable climatic predictors to improve extrapolation capability and uncertainty representation.

基于91年降雨记录的机器学习和统计分布模型对干旱地区降雨频率和不确定性的分析。
准确估计与标准回归期相关的降雨深度是水利设计、洪水风险评估和水资源管理的基础,特别是在干旱地区。统计极值分布长期以来一直是降雨频率分析的标准方法,而机器学习(ML)最近成为一种潜在的替代方法。本研究利用埃及苏伊士气象站的91年记录(1931-2021),对25个统计分布模型和3个监督ML回归器(支持向量机(SVM)、随机森林(RF)和极端梯度增强回归器(XGBR)进行年最大日降雨量(AMDR)频率分析进行了全面比较。在进行频率分析之前,使用Mann-Kendall检验、Sen's斜率估计和Lag-1自相关分析验证AMDR序列满足平稳性和序列独立性假设。统计分布模型在HEC-SSP中使用威布尔绘图位置实现,而ML模型是在Python中开发的,使用超越概率作为唯一的预测器,以便与统计频率模型进行直接和一致的比较。使用决定系数(R2)、均方误差(MSE)、均方根误差(RMSE)和平均绝对误差(MAE)来评估模型的性能,而预测不确定性使用90%的bootstrap置信区间来量化。结果表明,统计分布模型在所有性能指标上始终优于ML回归器。最大似然估计(GEVMLE)拟合的广义极值分布预测效果最好(R2 = 0.968, RMSE = 1.512 mm),其次是GEVLM和GLLM。相比之下,ML模型的预测精度明显较低(RF的R2 = 0.280, XGBR的R2 = 0.258, SVM的R2 = 0.087),并且在较长回归期(T≥25年)外推观测数据范围之外的极端降雨量的能力有限。ML模型也产生了相对较窄的置信区间,反映了训练域内有限的可变性,而基于gev的统计模型为极端降雨分位数提供了更现实的不确定性估计。总的来说,研究结果表明,当只有长期单变量降雨记录时,极端值分布,特别是GEV模型,在降雨频率分析方面仍然比ML回归更为稳健。因此,建议将GEVMLE用于苏伊士站和类似干旱沿海环境的降雨频率分析。未来的研究应该研究使用多变量气候预测器将极值理论与机器学习结合起来的混合框架,以提高外推能力和不确定性表征。
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
Scientific Reports
Scientific Reports Natural Science Disciplines-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19567
审稿时长
3.9 months
期刊介绍: We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections. Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021). •Engineering Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live. •Physical sciences Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics. •Earth and environmental sciences Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems. •Biological sciences Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants. •Health sciences The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书