<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/nlm-dtd/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">HESS</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Hydrology and Earth System Sciences</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">HESS</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1607-7938</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/hess-8-247-2004</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title>Comparison of three updating schemes using artificial neural network in flow forecasting</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Xiong</surname>
<given-names>Lihua</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">
<sup>1</sup>
</xref>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">
<sup>3</sup>
</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>O’Connor</surname>
<given-names>Kieran M.</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">
<sup>2</sup>
</xref>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">
<sup>3</sup>
</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Guo</surname>
<given-names>Shenglian</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">
<sup>1</sup>
</xref>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">
<sup>3</sup>
</xref>
</contrib>
</contrib-group><aff id="aff1">
<label>1</label>
<addr-line>State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, China</addr-line>
</aff>
<aff id="aff2">
<label>2</label>
<addr-line>Department of Engineering Hydrology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland</addr-line>
</aff>
<aff id="aff3">
<label>3</label>
<addr-line>E-mail for corresponding author: lhxiong@public.wh.hb.cn</addr-line>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>30</day>
<month>04</month>
<year>2004</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>8</volume>
<issue>2</issue>
<fpage>247</fpage>
<lpage>255</lpage>
<permissions>
<copyright-statement>Copyright: &#x000a9; 2004 Lihua Xiong et al.</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2004</copyright-year>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Generic License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri"  xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/8/247/2004/hess-8-247-2004.html">This article is available from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/8/247/2004/hess-8-247-2004.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/8/247/2004/hess-8-247-2004.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/8/247/2004/hess-8-247-2004.pdf</self-uri>
<abstract>
<p>Three updating schemes using artificial neural network (ANN) in flow forecasting 
    are compared in terms of model efficiency. The first is the ANN model in the simulation mode 
    plus an autoregressive (AR) model. For the ANN model in the simulation model, the input 
    includes the observed rainfall and the previously estimated discharges, while the AR model is 
    used to forecast the flow simulation errors of the ANN model. The second one is the ANN model 
    in the updating mode, i.e. the ANN model uses the observed discharge directly together with the 
    observed rainfall as the input. In this scheme, the weights of the ANN model are obtained by 
    optimisation and then kept fixed in the procedure of flow forecasting. The third one is also 
    the ANN model in the updating mode; however, the weights of the ANN model are no longer fixed 
    but updated at each time step by the backpropagation method using the latest forecast error 
    of the ANN model. These three updating schemes are tested for flow forecasting on ten 
    catchments and it is found that the third updating scheme is more effective than the other 
    two in terms of their efficiency in flow forecasting. Moreover, compared to the first updating 
    scheme, the third scheme is more parsimonious in terms of the number of parameters, since the 
    latter does not need any additional correction model. In conclusion, this paper recommends the 
    ANN model with the backpropagation method, which updates the weights of ANN at each time step 
    according to the latest forecast error, for use in real-time flow forecasting.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p  style=&quot;line-height: 20px;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;Keywords: &lt;/b&gt;artificial neural network (ANN), updating, flow forecasting, backpropagation 
       method</p>
</abstract>
<counts><page-count count="9"/></counts>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body/>
<back>
</back>
</article>