The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparison of performance of several artificial intelligence methods for forecasting monthly discharge time series
Open accessAbstract
Summary Developing a hydrological forecasting model based on past records is crucial to effective hydropower reservoir management and scheduling. Traditionally, time series analysis and modeling is used for building mathematical models to generate hydrologic records in hydrology and water resources. Artificial intelligence (AI), as a branch of computer science, is capable of analyzing long-series and large-scale hydrological data. In recent years, it is one of front issues to apply AI technology to the hydrological forecasting modeling. In this paper, autoregressive moving-average (ARMA) models, artificial neural networks (ANNs) approaches, adaptive neural-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) techniques, genetic programming (GP) models and support vector machine (SVM) method are examined using the long-term observations of monthly river flow discharges. The four quantitative standard statistical performance evaluation measures, the coefficient of correlation ( R ), Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient ( E ), root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), are employed to evaluate the performances of various models developed. Two case study river sites are also provided to illustrate their respective performances. The results indicate that the best performance can be obtained by ANFIS, GP and SVM, in terms of different evaluation criteria during the training and validation phases.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory
Vapnik, V. N. (1995) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2440-0 · Cited by 39,138
Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations
Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Liew, M. W. V., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D., & Veith, T. L. (2007) · Transactions of the ASABE · doi:10.13031/2013.23153 · Cited by 13,446
Cited by
Feng, D., Fang, K., & Shen, C. (2020) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2019wr026793 · Cited by 633
Seasonal Drought Prediction: Advances, Challenges, and Future Prospects
Hao, Z., Singh, V. P., & Xia, Y. (2018) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1002/2016rg000549 · Cited by 607
Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Intelligence Augmentation (IA): What Is the Future?
Hassani, H., Silva, E. S., Unger, S., TajMazinani, M., & Mac Feely, S. (2020) · AI · doi:10.3390/ai1020008 · Cited by 348
Sahoo, B. B., Jha, R., Singh, A., & Kumar, D. (2019) · Acta Geophysica · doi:10.1007/s11600-019-00330-1 · Cited by 339
He, Z., Wen, X., Liu, H., & Du, J. (2014) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.11.054 · Cited by 332
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, W.-C., Chau, K.-W., Cheng, C.-T., & Qiu, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Hydrology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-08
- Volume
- 374
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 294-306
- ISSN
- 0022-1694 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2055412520
- Cited by
- 824
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 33.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparison of performance of several artificial intelligence methods for forecasting monthly discharge time series. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.019
- The paper
- Wang, W.-C., Chau, K.-W., Cheng, C.-T., & Qiu, L. (2009). A comparison of performance of several artificial intelligence methods for forecasting monthly discharge time series. Journal of Hydrology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.019
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.