经典和机器学习方法在降雨数据恢复中的比较评估

IF 2.8 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Alireza Borhani Dariane, Matineh Imani Borhan
{"title":"经典和机器学习方法在降雨数据恢复中的比较评估","authors":"Alireza Borhani Dariane,&nbsp;Matineh Imani Borhan","doi":"10.1007/s12665-025-12255-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Incorporating a comprehensive long-term hydrological data is a crucial aspect of conducting water resource management studies. This approach enhances the precision of hydrological models. This article aims to investigate and compare various classical and machine learning (ML) methods for recovering missing rainfall data. The study focuses on five mountainous basins in the Central Alborz Ranges in Iran, utilizing 30 years of data. The classical methods used in the study include arithmetic average (AA), linear regression (LR), multiple linear regression (MLR), inverse distance weighting (IDW), kriging with three different semi-variogram and normal ratio (NR) models, and a suggested linear regression-arithmetic average (LR-AA) method. The ultimate goal is to identify suitable methods for accurately recovering missing rainfall data in the studied region. Several machine learning methods were employed to restore precipitation data, such as artificial neural networks (ANN), support vector regression (SVR), M5 trees, and, as a novel approach, two types of adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems (ANFIS). To ensure that the selected duration does not have any potential impact, three intervals of artificial gaps have been incorporated to minimize the uncertainties in recovery period. These periods include 1990–1993, 2002–2005, and 2011–2014. In addition, a Social Choice method was coupled with the evaluation criteria to enhance the comparison process. In general, the results indicate that machine learning methods outperform than the classical approaches. For example, during the gap of 2002–2005 in the Karaj basin, the SVR method is the most effective method with RMSE, NSE and <span>\\({\\text{R}}^{2}\\)</span> criteria of 7.31 mm, 0.97, and 0.97, respectively. The proposed AA-LR method was found to perform better than AA or LR as well as most other classical methods. All methods have been thoroughly evaluated and compared using various criteria and aspects, making them a valuable reference for hydrological studies involving rainfall data recovery.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":542,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Earth Sciences","volume":"84 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative assessment of classical and machine learning approaches for rainfall data restoration\",\"authors\":\"Alireza Borhani Dariane,&nbsp;Matineh Imani Borhan\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12665-025-12255-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Incorporating a comprehensive long-term hydrological data is a crucial aspect of conducting water resource management studies. This approach enhances the precision of hydrological models. This article aims to investigate and compare various classical and machine learning (ML) methods for recovering missing rainfall data. The study focuses on five mountainous basins in the Central Alborz Ranges in Iran, utilizing 30 years of data. The classical methods used in the study include arithmetic average (AA), linear regression (LR), multiple linear regression (MLR), inverse distance weighting (IDW), kriging with three different semi-variogram and normal ratio (NR) models, and a suggested linear regression-arithmetic average (LR-AA) method. The ultimate goal is to identify suitable methods for accurately recovering missing rainfall data in the studied region. Several machine learning methods were employed to restore precipitation data, such as artificial neural networks (ANN), support vector regression (SVR), M5 trees, and, as a novel approach, two types of adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems (ANFIS). To ensure that the selected duration does not have any potential impact, three intervals of artificial gaps have been incorporated to minimize the uncertainties in recovery period. These periods include 1990–1993, 2002–2005, and 2011–2014. In addition, a Social Choice method was coupled with the evaluation criteria to enhance the comparison process. In general, the results indicate that machine learning methods outperform than the classical approaches. For example, during the gap of 2002–2005 in the Karaj basin, the SVR method is the most effective method with RMSE, NSE and <span>\\\\({\\\\text{R}}^{2}\\\\)</span> criteria of 7.31 mm, 0.97, and 0.97, respectively. The proposed AA-LR method was found to perform better than AA or LR as well as most other classical methods. All methods have been thoroughly evaluated and compared using various criteria and aspects, making them a valuable reference for hydrological studies involving rainfall data recovery.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Earth Sciences\",\"volume\":\"84 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Earth Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-025-12255-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Earth Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-025-12255-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

综合长期水文数据是开展水资源管理研究的一个重要方面。这种方法提高了水文模型的精度。本文旨在研究和比较用于恢复缺失降雨数据的各种经典和机器学习(ML)方法。这项研究的重点是伊朗中部阿尔博尔斯山脉的五个山区盆地,利用了30年的数据。研究中使用的经典方法包括算术平均法(AA)、线性回归法(LR)、多元线性回归法(MLR)、距离逆加权法(IDW)、kriging法(半变异比和正态比)和建议线性回归-算术平均法(LR-AA)。最终目标是确定合适的方法来准确地恢复研究地区缺失的降雨数据。采用了人工神经网络(ANN)、支持向量回归(SVR)、M5树等几种机器学习方法来恢复降水数据,并采用了两种自适应神经模糊推理系统(ANFIS)作为新方法。为了确保所选择的持续时间不会产生任何潜在的影响,我们加入了三个人为间隔,以最大限度地减少恢复期的不确定性。这些时期包括1990-1993年、2002-2005年和2011-2014年。此外,将社会选择方法与评价标准相结合,增强了比较过程。总的来说,结果表明机器学习方法优于经典方法。例如,在2002-2005年的空白期,SVR方法是最有效的方法,RMSE为7.31 mm, NSE为0.97,\({\text{R}}^{2}\)标准为0.97。结果表明,本文提出的AA-LR方法优于AA或LR方法以及大多数经典方法。所有方法都已使用各种标准和方面进行了彻底的评估和比较,使它们成为涉及降雨数据恢复的水文研究的宝贵参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative assessment of classical and machine learning approaches for rainfall data restoration

Incorporating a comprehensive long-term hydrological data is a crucial aspect of conducting water resource management studies. This approach enhances the precision of hydrological models. This article aims to investigate and compare various classical and machine learning (ML) methods for recovering missing rainfall data. The study focuses on five mountainous basins in the Central Alborz Ranges in Iran, utilizing 30 years of data. The classical methods used in the study include arithmetic average (AA), linear regression (LR), multiple linear regression (MLR), inverse distance weighting (IDW), kriging with three different semi-variogram and normal ratio (NR) models, and a suggested linear regression-arithmetic average (LR-AA) method. The ultimate goal is to identify suitable methods for accurately recovering missing rainfall data in the studied region. Several machine learning methods were employed to restore precipitation data, such as artificial neural networks (ANN), support vector regression (SVR), M5 trees, and, as a novel approach, two types of adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems (ANFIS). To ensure that the selected duration does not have any potential impact, three intervals of artificial gaps have been incorporated to minimize the uncertainties in recovery period. These periods include 1990–1993, 2002–2005, and 2011–2014. In addition, a Social Choice method was coupled with the evaluation criteria to enhance the comparison process. In general, the results indicate that machine learning methods outperform than the classical approaches. For example, during the gap of 2002–2005 in the Karaj basin, the SVR method is the most effective method with RMSE, NSE and \({\text{R}}^{2}\) criteria of 7.31 mm, 0.97, and 0.97, respectively. The proposed AA-LR method was found to perform better than AA or LR as well as most other classical methods. All methods have been thoroughly evaluated and compared using various criteria and aspects, making them a valuable reference for hydrological studies involving rainfall data recovery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Earth Sciences
Environmental Earth Sciences 环境科学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.60%
发文量
494
审稿时长
8.3 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Earth Sciences is an international multidisciplinary journal concerned with all aspects of interaction between humans, natural resources, ecosystems, special climates or unique geographic zones, and the earth: Water and soil contamination caused by waste management and disposal practices Environmental problems associated with transportation by land, air, or water Geological processes that may impact biosystems or humans Man-made or naturally occurring geological or hydrological hazards Environmental problems associated with the recovery of materials from the earth Environmental problems caused by extraction of minerals, coal, and ores, as well as oil and gas, water and alternative energy sources Environmental impacts of exploration and recultivation – Environmental impacts of hazardous materials Management of environmental data and information in data banks and information systems Dissemination of knowledge on techniques, methods, approaches and experiences to improve and remediate the environment In pursuit of these topics, the geoscientific disciplines are invited to contribute their knowledge and experience. Major disciplines include: hydrogeology, hydrochemistry, geochemistry, geophysics, engineering geology, remediation science, natural resources management, environmental climatology and biota, environmental geography, soil science and geomicrobiology.
×
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