Abstract

Accurate streamflow prediction is essential in reservoir management, flood control, and operation of irrigation networks. In this study, the deterministic and stochastic components of modeling are considered simultaneously. Two nonlinear time series models are developed based on autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity and self-exciting threshold autoregressive methods integrated with the gene expression programming. The data of four stations from four different rivers from 1971 to 2010 are investigated. For examining the reliability and accuracy of the proposed hybrid models, three evaluation criteria, namely the R2, RMSE, and MAE, and several visual plots were used. Performance comparison of the hybrid models revealed that the accuracy of the SETAR-type models in terms of R2 performed better than the ARCH-type models for Daryan (0.99), Germezigol (0.99), Ligvan (0.97), and Saeedabad (0.98) at the validation stage. Overall, prediction results showed that a combination of the SETAR with the GEP model performs better than ARCH-based GEP models for the prediction of the monthly streamflow. Abbreviations: ADF = Augmented Dickey-Fuller; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; ANFIS = Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System; ANNs = Artificial Neural Networks; AR = Autoregressive Models; ARIMA = Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average; ARCH = Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity; ATAR = Aggregation Operator Based TAR; BL = Bilinear Models; BNN = Bayesian Neural Network; CEEMD = Complete Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition; DDM =Data-Driven Model; GA = Genetic Algorithm; GARCH = Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity; GEP = Gene Expression Programming; KNN = K-Nearest Neighbors; KPSS = Kwiatkowski–Phillips–Schmidt–Shin; LMR = Linear and Multilinear Regressions; LR = Likelihood Ratio; LSTAR = Logistic STAR; MAE = Mean Absolute Error; PACF = Partial Autocorrelation Function; PARCH = Partial Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity; R 2 = Coefficient of Determination; RMSE = Root Mean Square Error; RNNs = Recurrent Neural Networks; SETARMA = Self-Exciting Threshold Autoregressive Moving Average; SETAR = Self-Exciting Threshold Autoregressive; STAR = Smooth Transition AR; SVR = Support Vector Regression; TAR = Threshold Autoregressive; TARMA = Threshold Autoregressive Moving Average; ULB = Urmia Lake Basin; VMD = Variational Mode Decomposition; WT = Wavelet Transforms

Highlights

  • Streamflow, as a nonlinear hydrological variable, has a primary role in decisions and management of water engineering sector managers and experts (Attar et al, 2020; Ravansalar et al, 2017)

  • The benchmark and proposed prediction hybrid models were established using two novel variance-based stochastic nonlinear methods, namely Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (ARCH) and Self-exciting threshold autoregressive (SETAR) combining with selected best fitted standalone gene expression programming (GEP) model for four selected hydrometric stations in the Urmia Lake basin. This result part is divided into subsections, including the results of premodeling tests, assessment of standalone SETAR models, the results of combined GEP-ARCH and GEP-SETAR models, and in last, the conclusion and future works were recommended

  • The KPSS test is on the other side of the augmented dickey-fuller (ADF) test, which means that based on Table 3, the null hypothesis is accepted, which means that the data series is stationary under a 95% confidence level

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Streamflow, as a nonlinear hydrological variable, has a primary role in decisions and management of water engineering sector managers and experts (Attar et al, 2020; Ravansalar et al, 2017). AlJuboori et al calculated streamflow on a monthly scale using the GEP model in three rivers, Hurman in Turkey, Diyalah, and Lesser Zab in Iraq, and their results were compared with markovian model and ARIMA models. In their analysis, the GEP model performed better than two other methods (Mahmood Al-Juboori & Guven, 2016). The GEP model performed better than two other methods (Mahmood Al-Juboori & Guven, 2016) These DDMs have a limitation regarding dealing with stochastic parts of equations. Nonlinear time series has received much attention in recent years (Fathian et al, 2019)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.