Pith. sign in

REVIEW

The Proper Care and Feeding of CAMELS: How Limited Training Data Affects Streamflow Prediction

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1911.07249 v3 pith:7RHEIPGX submitted 2019-11-17 cs.LG stat.ML

classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords trainingdatamodelsmanypredictionsstreamflowaccurateavailable
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Accurate streamflow prediction largely relies on historical meteorological records and streamflow measurements. For many regions, however, such data are only scarcely available. Facing this problem, many studies simply trained their machine learning models on the region's available data, leaving possible repercussions of this strategy unclear. In this study, we evaluate the sensitivity of tree- and LSTM-based models to limited training data, both in terms of geographic diversity and different time spans. We feed the models meteorological observations disseminated with the CAMELS dataset, and individually restrict the training period length, number of training basins, and input sequence length. We quantify how additional training data improve predictions and how many previous days of forcings we should feed the models to obtain best predictions for each training set size. Further, our findings show that tree- and LSTM-based models provide similarly accurate predictions on small datasets, while LSTMs are superior given more training data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools