the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Exploring the ability of LSTM-based hydrological models to simulate streamflow time series for flood frequency analysis
Abstract. An increasing number of studies have shown the prowess of Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks for hydrological modelling and forecasting. One commonly cited drawback of these methods, however, is the requirement for large amounts of training data to properly reproduce streamflow events. For maximum annual streamflow, this can be problematic since they are by definition less common than mid- or low-flows, leading to under-representation in the model’s training set and, ultimately, parameterization. This study investigates six methods to improve peak streamflow simulation skill of LSTM models used to extend streamflow observation time series for flood frequency analysis (FFA). Methods include adding meteorological data variables, providing streamflow simulations from a distributed hydrological model, oversampling peak streamflow events, adding multihead attention mechanisms, adding data from a large set of “donor” catchments and combining some of these elements in a single model. Furthermore, results are compared to those obtained by the distributed hydrological model HYDROTEL. The study is performed on 88 catchments in the province of Quebec using a leave-one-out cross-validation implementation and an FFA is applied using observations as well as model simulations. Results show that LSTM-based models are able to simulate peak streamflow as well (for a simple LSTM model implementation) or better (with hybrid LSTM-hydrological model implementations) than the distributed hydrological model. Multiple pathways forward to further improve the LSTM-based model’s ability to predict peak streamflow are provided and discussed.
- Preprint
(1683 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2134', Emilio Graciliano Ferreira Mercuri, 21 Sep 2024
reply
The manuscript entitled "Exploring the ability of LSTM-based hydrological models to simulate streamflow time series for flood frequency analysis" presents an interesting comparison between a distributed hydrological model (HYDROTEL) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) deep learning models. Below are some points regarding its methodology, results, and potential areas for improvement:
1. LSTM is one class of machine learning algorithms. There are other types being used with good quality of results such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Random Forests, or Gradient Boosted Trees. This should be considered in the literature review and/or as a future development.
2. One of the key methods tested, oversampling of extreme peak streamflow events, performed poorly. This suggests a more nuanced approach to data augmentation might be required. Future work could explore advanced synthetic data generation techniques like the Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) rather than simply replicating extreme events. One example is the paper: Wu, Yirui, Yukai Ding, and Jun Feng. "SMOTE-Boost-based sparse Bayesian model for flood prediction." EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking 2020 (2020): 1-12.
3. The multihead attention mechanism did not significantly improve the LSTM model’s performance. This raises questions about whether it was fully optimized or if a different attention configuration could be more effective. The complexity added by the attention mechanism might not have been justified, given the size of the dataset. I know that the codes were shared, but some diagram and/or a more complete description of the attention mechanism would be interesting to be added, to help future research in the area.
4. One of the paper's recurring challenges is the inherent scarcity of extreme flood events, which makes it difficult for LSTMs to train effectively. Although the study attempts to mitigate this issue, it highlights that LSTMs struggle with rare event prediction without sufficient data. The paper could benefit from exploring more advanced techniques for handling imbalanced datasets, such as ensemble methods or using generative models to simulate extreme events.
5. Given the results across different test periods, there seems to be a risk of overfitting, particularly in models like LSTM-Combined. The paper could benefit from a more thorough discussion and results presentation on the loss function variation during training and testing epochs.
6. The authors could provide some explanation about the reasons why floods are occurring in Quebec, Canada. Is it increasing the frequency over the years? Are soil or land use reasons for that? Is it related to climate change?
Overall, the paper provides valuable insights into the utility of LSTMs for hydrological modeling, especially in terms of hybrid model approaches.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2134-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jean-Luc Martel, 07 Nov 2024
reply
Please see the attached PDF for our detailed response.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jean-Luc Martel, 07 Nov 2024
reply
Data sets
HYSETS - A 14425 watershed Hydrometeorological Sandbox over North America R. Arsenault, F. Brissette, J. L. Martel, M. Troin, G. Lévesque, J. Davidson-Chaput, M. Castañeda Gonzalez, A. Ameli, and A. Poulin https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RPC3W
Model code and software
LSTM for FFA - codes and data R. Arsenault, J.-L. Martel, and F. Brissette https://osf.io/zwtnq/
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
255 | 116 | 57 | 428 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 255
- PDF: 116
- XML: 57
- Total: 428
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1