Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37099590›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Water level prediction using soft computing techniques: A case study in the Malwathu Oya, Sri Lanka.

Namal Rathnayake, Upaka Rathnayake, Tuan Linh Dang, Yukinobu Hoshino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Namal RathnayakeSchool of Systems Engineering, Kochi University of Technology, Kochi, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-5235-8552
Upaka RathnayakeDepartment of Civil Engineering and Construction, Faculty of Engineering and Design, Atlantic Technological University, Sligo, Ireland.
Tuan Linh DangSchool of Information and Communications Technology, Hanoi University of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Yukinobu HoshinoSchool of Systems Engineering, Kochi University of Technology, Kochi, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-5285-8007

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hydrologic models to simulate river flows are computationally costly. In addition to the precipitation and other meteorological time series, catchment characteristics, including soil data, land use, land cover, and roughness, are essential in most hydrologic models. The unavailability of these data series challenged the accuracy of simulations. However, recent advances in soft computing techniques offer better approaches and solutions at less computational complexity. These require a minimum amount of data, while they reach higher accuracies depending on the quality of data sets. The Gradient Boosting Algorithms and Adaptive Network-based Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) are two such systems that can be used in simulating river flows based on the catchment rainfall. In this paper, the computational capabilities of these two systems were tested in simulated river flows by developing the prediction models for Malwathu Oya in Sri Lanka. The simulated flows were then compared with the ground-measured river flows for accuracy. Correlation of coefficient (R), Per cent-Bias (bias), Nash Sutcliffe Model efficiency (NSE), Mean Absolute Relative Error (MARE), Kling-Gupta Efficiency (KGE), and Root mean square error (RMSE) were used as the comparative indices between Gradient Boosting Algorithms and Adaptive Network-based Fuzzy Inference Systems. Results of the study showcased that both systems can simulate river flows as a function of catchment rainfalls; however, the Cat gradient Boosting algorithm (CatBoost) has a computational edge over the Adaptive Network Based Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS). The CatBoost algorithm outperformed other algorithms used in this study, with the best correlation score for the testing dataset having 0.9934. The extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), Light gradient boosting (LightGBM), and Ensemble models scored 0.9283, 0.9253, and 0.9109, respectively. However, more applications should be investigated for sound conclusions.

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringNeural Networks, ComputerAlgorithmsFuzzy LogicSri LankaWaterWater

Identifiers

PMID37099590
PMCPMC10132539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.