This paper is derived from a keynote talk given at the Google's 2020 Flood Forecasting Meets Machine Learning Workshop. Recent experiments applying deep learning to rainfall-runoff simulation indicate that there is significantly more information in large-scale hydrological data sets than hydrologists have been able to translate into theory or models. While there is a growing interest in machine learning in the hydrological sciences community, in many ways, our community still holds deeply subjective and nonevidence-based preferences for models based on a certain type of "process understanding" that has historically not translated into accurate theory, models, or predictions. This commentary is a call to action for the hydrology community to focus on developing a quantitative understanding of where and when hydrological process understanding is valuable in a modeling discipline increasingly dominated by machine learning. We offer some potential perspectives and preliminary examples about how this might be accomplished.
We suggest that there is a potential danger to the hydrological sciences community in not recognizing how transformative machine learning will be for the future of hydrological modeling. Given the recent success of machine learning applied to modeling problems, it is unclear what the role of hydrological theory might be in the future. We suggest that a central challenge in hydrology right now should be to clearly delineate where and when hydrological theory adds value to prediction systems. Lessons learned from the history of hydrological modeling motivate several clear next steps toward integrating machine learning into hydrological modeling workflows.
We build three long short‐term memory (LSTM) daily streamflow prediction models (deep learning networks) for 531 basins across the contiguous United States (CONUS), and compare their performance: (1) a LSTM post‐processor trained on the United States National Water Model (NWM) outputs (LSTM_PP), (2) a LSTM post‐processor trained on the NWM outputs and atmospheric forcings (LSTM_PPA), and (3) a LSTM model trained only on atmospheric forcing (LSTM_A). We trained the LSTMs for the period 2004–2014 and evaluated on 1994–2002, and compared several performance metrics to the NWM reanalysis. Overall performance of the three LSTMs is similar, with median NSE scores of 0.73 (LSTM_PP), 0.75 (LSTM_PPA), and 0.74 (LSTM_A), and all three LSTMs outperform the NWM validation scores of 0.62. Additionally, LSTM_A outperforms LSTM_PP and LSTM_PPA in ungauged basins. While LSTM as a post‐processor improves NWM predictions substantially, we achieved comparable performance with the LSTM trained without the NWM outputs (LSTM_A). Finally, we performed a sensitivity analysis to diagnose the land surface component of the NWM as the source of mass bias error and the channel router as a source of simulation timing error. This indicates that the NWM channel routing scheme should be considered a priority for NWM improvement.
Abstract. The most accurate rainfall–runoff predictions are currently based on deep learning. There is a concern among hydrologists that the predictive accuracy of data-driven models based on deep learning may not be reliable in extrapolation or for predicting extreme events. This study tests that hypothesis using long short-term memory (LSTM) networks and an LSTM variant that is architecturally constrained to conserve mass. The LSTM network (and the mass-conserving LSTM variant) remained relatively accurate in predicting extreme (high-return-period) events compared with both a conceptual model (the Sacramento Model) and a process-based model (the US National Water Model), even when extreme events were not included in the training period. Adding mass balance constraints to the data-driven model (LSTM) reduced model skill during extreme events.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.