Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of stochastic and artificial intelligence models in modeling and predicting of river daily flow time series

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Modeling and forecasting the flow of rivers, especially in flood-prone areas using warning systems, enables officials to take the required measures for cutting the damage. On the other hand, they can adopt specific measures flood control and prevention. In the present study, two stochastic and three artificial intelligence (AI) models were compared, in modeling and predicting the daily flow of the Zilakirud river in northern Iran. The daily data belongs to the period of 2001–2015 (14 hydrological years from 23/Sep/2001 to 22/Sep/2015). First, the data was reviewed in terms of hydrological drought at the annual scale, using Streamflow Drought Index (SDI). The inputs for the models included the time lags of river daily flow. After choosing the input scenario, two approaches were tested for choosing the percentage of calibration and validation: (1) The last single year for validation; (2) The last 4 years for validation (about 30% of the data, which is a common method). A comparison between the models showed that the accuracy of AI models was higher than stochastic ones. Among the AI models, Group Method of Data Handling (GMDH) and Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) showed the best validation performance in both approaches. The findings showed that among the two approaches, approach (1) can show a better predicting accuracy with RMSE of 1.50 and 1.40 CMS for GMDH and MLP, respectively while in the second approach, the RMSE was 5.15 and 5.29 CMS for GMDH and MLP, respectively. Also, from the perspective of drought classes, the weakest result belonged to the moderately wet hydrological year (the hydrological year of 2011–2012) and the best performances was observed in the mild drought hydrological year (the hydrological year of 2014–2015).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abudu S, Cui C, King JP, Abudukadeer K (2010) Comparison of performance of statistical models in forecasting monthly streamflow of Kizil River, China. Water Sci Eng 3(3):269–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Achouri I, Hani I, Bougherira N, Djabri L, Chaffai H, Lallahem S (2015) River flow model using artificial neural networks. Energy Proc 74:1007–1014

    Google Scholar 

  • Aghelpour P, Mohammadi B, Biazar SM (2019) Long-term monthly average temperature forecasting in some climate types of Iran, using the models SARIMA, SVR, and SVR-FA. Theor Appl Climatol 138:1471–1480

    Google Scholar 

  • Alipour Y, Mardoukhpour A, Amiri E, Jamasbi H (2016) Investigation of estimating river suspended sediment using artificial neural network and neuro-fuzzy inference system. In: 1st national conference on civil engineering, new releases, economic development, cultural and tenacious management, Islamic Azad University of Bandar-Anzali, Bandar-Anzali, Iran

  • Araghinejad S (2013) Data-driven modeling: using MATLAB® in water resources and environmental engineering, vol 67. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronica GT, Candela A (2007) Derivation of flood frequency curves in poorly gauged Mediterranean catchments using a simple stochastic hydrological rainfall runoff model. J Hydrol 347(1–2):132–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Box GEP, Jenkins GM (1976) Time series analysis: forecasting and control, 2nd edn. Holden-Day, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Cigizoglu HK, Alp M (2004) Rainfall-runoff modelling using three neural network methods. In: 7th international conference on artificial intelligence and soft computing, Zakopane, Poland

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Shafie A, Taha MR, Noureldin A (2007) A neuro-fuzzy model for inflow forecasting of the Nile River at Aswan high dam. Water Resour Manag 21(3):533–556

    Google Scholar 

  • Faiz MA, Liu D, Fu Q, Uzair M, Khan MI, Baig F, Li T, Cui S (2018) Stream flow variability and drought severity in the Songhua River Basin, Northeast China. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 32(5):1225–1242

    Google Scholar 

  • Firat M (2008) Comparison of artificial intelligence techniques for river flow forecasting. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 12:123–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Firat M, Güngör M (2007) River flow estimation using adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system. Math Comput Simul 75(3–4):87–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghumman AR, Ghazaw YM, Sohail AR, Watanabe K (2011) Runoff forecasting by artificial neural network and conventional model. Alex Eng J 50(4):348–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Haykin S (1999) Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation. MacMillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Houichi L, Dechemi N, Heddam S, Achour B (2012) An evaluation of ANN methods for estimating the lengths of hydraulic jumps in U-shaped channel. J Hydroinformatics 15(1):147–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivakhnenko AG (1970) Heuristic self-organization in problems of engineering cybernetics. Automatica 6(2):207–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasiviswanathan KS, Sudheer KP (2013) Quantification of the predictive uncertainty of artificial neural network based river flow forecast models. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 27(1):137–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Hwang Y (2015) Improving drought predictability in Arkansas using the ensemble PDSI forecast technique. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 29(1):79–91

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maier HR, Dandy GC (1996) The use of artificial neural networks for the prediction of water quality parameters. Water Resour Res 32(4):1013–1022

    Google Scholar 

  • Moharrampour M, Mehrabi A, Hajikandi H, Sohrabi S, Vakili J (2013) Comparison of support vector machines (SVM) and autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) in daily flow forecasting. J River Eng 1(1):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosavi MR (2007) GPS receivers timing data processing using neural networks: optimal estimation and errors modeling. Int J Neural Syst 17(5):383–393

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Najafzadeh M, Zahiri A (2015) Neuro-fuzzy GMDH-based evolutionary algorithms to predict flow discharge in straight compound channels. J Hydrol Eng 20(12):04015035

    Google Scholar 

  • Nalbantis I (2008) Evaluation of a hydrological drought index. Eur Water 23(24):67–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayak PC, Sudheer KP, Rangan DM, Ramasastri KS (2004) A neuro-fuzzy computing technique for modeling hydrological time series. J Hydrol 291:52–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Nazir HM, Hussain I, Faisal M, Shoukry AM, Gani S, Ahmad I (2019) Development of multidecomposition hybrid model for hydrological time series analysis. Complexity 2019:2782715. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2782715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niedzielski T, Miziński B (2017) Real-time hydrograph modelling in the upper Nysa Kłodzka river basin (SW Poland): a two-model hydrologic ensemble prediction approach. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31(6):1555–1576

    Google Scholar 

  • Nirumand HA, Bozorgnia AGh (2010) Introduction to time series analysis. University Publications, Mashhad, Ferdousi

    Google Scholar 

  • Onwubolu GC (2008) Design of hybrid differential evolution and group method of data handling networks for modeling and prediction. Inf Sci 178(18):3616–3634

    Google Scholar 

  • Onwubolu G (2015) GMDH-methodology and implementation in MATLAB. Imperial College Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas JD (1993) Analysis and modelling of hydrological time series. Maidmer handbook of hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas JD, Delleur W, Yevjevich V, Lane WL (1988) Applied modeling of hydrologic time series. Water Resources Publications, Littleton

    Google Scholar 

  • Samsudin R, Saad P, Shabri A (2011) River flow time series using least square support vector machines. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15:1835–1852

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh P, Deo MC (2007) Suitability of different neural networks in daily flow forecasting. Appl Soft Comput 7(3):968–978

    Google Scholar 

  • Taherparvar M, Pirmoradian N, Vazifedoust M (2017) Comparison of gap filling methods in landsat ETM + 7 images to estimate crop coefficient. Iranian J Soil Water Res 47(4):665–676

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor KE (2001) summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram. J Geophys Res Atmos 106(D7):7183–7192

    Google Scholar 

  • Tongal H, Berndtsson R (2017) Impact of complexity on daily and multi-step forecasting of streamflow with chaotic, stochastic, and black-box models. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31(3):661–682

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai TM, Yen PH (2017) GMDH algorithms applied to turbidity forecasting. Appl Water Sci 7(3):1151–1160

    Google Scholar 

  • Ursu E, Pereau JC (2016) Application of periodic autoregressive process to the modeling of the Garonne river flows. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 30(7):1785–1795

    Google Scholar 

  • Valipour M, Banihabib ME, Behbahani SMR (2013) Comparison of the ARMA, ARIMA, and the autoregressive artificial neural network models in forecasting the monthly inflow of Dez dam reservoir. J Hydrol 476(7):433–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Veintimilla-Reyes J, Cisneros F, Vanegas P (2016) Artificial Neural Networks applied to flow prediction: a use case for the Tomebamba River. Proc Eng 162:153–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Water PR, Kerckhoffs E, Van Welden D (2000) GMDH-based dependency modeling in the identification of dynamic systems. In: Proceedings of the 14th European simulation multiconference (ESM 2000), Gent, Belgium, May 23–26, 2000, pp 211–218

  • Willmott CJ, Robeson SM, Matsuura K (2012) A refined index of model performance. Int J Climatol 32(13):2088–2094

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu SJ, Lien HC, Chang CH, Shen JC (2012) Real-time correction of water stage forecast during rainstorm events using combination of forecast errors. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 26(4):519–531

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin Z, Feng Q, Wen X, Deo RC, Yang L, Si J, He Z (2018) Design and evaluation of SVR, MARS and M5Tree models for 1, 2 and 3-day lead time forecasting of river flow data in a semiarid mountainous catchment. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 32(9):2457–2476

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahraie B, Nasseri M, Nematizadeh F (2017) Exploring spatiotemporal meteorological correlations for basin scale meteorological drought forecasting using data mining methods. Arabian J Geosci 10(19):419

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Z, Zhang Q, Singh VP, Shi P (2018) River flow modelling: comparison of performance and evaluation of uncertainty using data-driven models and conceptual hydrological model. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 32(9):2667–2682

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Fatemeh Mekanik for valuable comments and the anonymous referees for their useful suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Water Engineering and Sciences Department, Agriculture Faculty, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Hamedan, 65178-38695, Iran

    Pouya Aghelpour & Vahid Varshavian

Authors
  1. Pouya Aghelpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vahid Varshavian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vahid Varshavian.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aghelpour, P., Varshavian, V. Evaluation of stochastic and artificial intelligence models in modeling and predicting of river daily flow time series. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 34, 33–50 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-019-01761-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-019-01761-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation