| Literature DB >> 36080874 |
Yongtao Wang1,2, Jian Liu1, Rong Li1, Xinyu Suo1, Enhui Lu3.
Abstract
To address the problem of low prediction accuracy of precipitation time series data, an improved overall mean empirical modal decomposition-prediction-reconstruction model (MDPRM) is constructed in this paper. First, the non-stationary precipitation time series are decomposed into multiple decomposition terms by the improved overall mean empirical modal decomposition (MEEMD). Then, a particle swarm optimization support vector machine (PSO-SVM) and convolutional neural network (CNN) and recurrent neural network (RNN) models are used to make predictions according to the characteristics of different decomposition terms. Finally, the prediction results of each decomposition term are superimposed and reconstructed to form the final prediction results. In addition, the application is carried out with the summer precipitation in the Wujiang River basin of Guizhou Province from 1961 to 2018, using the first 38 years of data to train MDPRM and the last 20 years of data to test MDPRM, and comparing with a feedback neural network (BP), a support vector machine (SVM), a particle swarm optimization support vector machine (PSO-SVM), a convolutional neural network (CNN), and a recurrent neural network (RNN), etc. The results show that the mean relative error (MAPE) of the proposed MDPRM is reduced from 0.31 to 0.09, the root mean square error (RMSE) is reduced from 0.56 to 0.30, and the consistency index (α) is significantly improved from 0.33 to 0.86, which has a higher prediction accuracy. Finally, the trained MDPRM predicts the average summer precipitation in the Wujiang River basin from 2019 to 2028 to be 466.42 mm, the minimum precipitation in 2020 to be 440.94 mm, and the maximum precipitation in 2024 to be 497.94 mm. Based on the prediction results, the agricultural drought level is evaluated using the Z index, which indicates that the summer is normal in the 10-year period. The study provides technical support for the effective guidance of regional water resources' allocation and scheduling and drought mitigation.Entities:
Keywords: convolutional neural network (CNN); improved overall mean empirical modality (MEEMD); improved overall mean empirical modality decomposition–prediction–reconstruction model (MDPRM); particle swarm optimization support vector machine (PSO-SVM); recurrent neural network (RNN)
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36080874 PMCID: PMC9460057 DOI: 10.3390/s22176415
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Study of correlation portfolio prediction methods.
| Serial Number | Researchers | Model Algorithm | Effect | Prediction Scenarios | Research Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Zhang et al. | MEEMD-ARIMA | Better than CEEMD-ARIMA model or EEMD-ARIMA model | Annual runoff in the lower reaches of the Yellow River | 2020 |
| [ | Wu et al. | Improved Grey BPNN-MEEMD-ARIMA | The effectiveness of the proposed wave energy forecast model is validated. | Prediction of wave energy | 2021 |
| [ | Wang et al. | MEEMD-CS-Elman | Better than EMD-Elman or MEEMD-Elman model | Gold futures AU0 price data | 2021 |
| [ | Song et al. | MEEMD-SAE-Elman | Better than Elman, EMD-Elman, EMD-SAE-Elman | Wind power ultra-short-term | 2020 |
| [ | Xie et al. | MEEMD+WLS-SVM | Better than Wavelet Neural Network, Support Vector Machine, Least Squares Support Vector Machine | Landslide Deformation Prediction in Danba | 2017 |
| [ | Lin et al. | LSTM-MEEMD | Better than MLP, SVR and SL | Precious Metals Price | 2022 |
| [ | Yang et al. | MEEMD-LSTM. | Better than 11 other benchmark models | Carbon price | 2020 |
| [ | Yang et al. | MEEMD-LSTM | Better than LSTM models and one-factor MEEMD-LSTM | Carbon price | 2022 |
Figure 1The MDPRM model structure.
Figure 2River system map of the Wujiang River Basin.
Figure 3Seasonal precipitation in the Wujiang River Basin (1986–2018).
Figure 4Results of MEEMD decomposition of summer precipitation in the Wujiang River basin.
Figure 5Comparison of predicted and actual values of IMF1−IMF2. (a) IMF1 predicted versus true values; (b) IMF2 predicted versus true values; (c) IMF1 fitness value; (d) IMF2 adaptation value.
Figure 6CNN model.
Figure 7Comparison of IMF3−IMF4 predicted true values.
Figure 8The structure of RNN.
Figure 9Comparison of the predicted and actual values of RNN.
Figure 10Comparison of summer precipitation test results in the Wujiang River basin from 1999–2018.
Evaluation of simulation accuracy of different model algorithms.
| Serial Number | Model Algorithm |
|
| α |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | BP | 0.14 | 0.37 | 0.64 |
| 2 | SVM | 0.12 | 0.35 | 0.75 |
| 3 | PSO−SVM | 0.29 | 0.54 | 0.45 |
| 4 | CNN | 0.32 | 0.57 | 0.33 |
| 5 | RNN | 0.26 | 0.51 | 0.53 |
| 6 | MDPRM | 0.09 | 0.30 | 0.86 |
Precipitation forecast and drought assessment for the summer of 2019–2028 in the Wujiang River basin.
| Decomposition Items | Prediction Method | Years | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | ||
|
| PSO−SVM | −0.09 | −0.09 | −0.09 | −0.09 | −0.09 | −0.09 | −0.09 | −0.09 | −0.09 | −0.09 |
|
| PSO−SVM | 5.09 | −7.04 | −6.85 | 0.11 | −6.15 | 2.03 | 2.44 | 1.85 | −5.38 | −2.11 |
|
| CNN | −53.30 | −64.53 | −50.68 | −24.92 | −1.26 | 10.70 | 9.25 | −0.54 | −9.73 | −10.83 |
|
| CNN | 33.07 | 27.04 | 19.43 | 9.54 | 0.47 | −8.58 | −17.32 | −24.53 | −30.55 | −35.04 |
|
| RNN | 488.51 | 485.56 | 485.77 | 489.00 | 493.07 | 493.87 | 493.01 | 493.18 | 489.20 | 492.24 |
| Predicted Results (mm) | 473.29 | 440.94 | 447.58 | 473.64 | 486.05 | 497.94 | 487.30 | 469.87 | 443.45 | 444.18 | |
| Z-index | −0.35 | −0.65 | −0.59 | −0.34 | −0.23 | −0.12 | −0.22 | −0.38 | −0.63 | −0.62 | |
| Drought Level | Normal | Normal | Normal | Normal | Normal | Normal | Normal | Normal | Normal | Normal | |