mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Probing the limit of hydrologic predictability with the Transformer network

arXiv 2306.12384 ↗First posted 21 Jun 2023cs.LG cs.AI physics.geo-phcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

For a number of years since its introduction to hydrology, recurrent neural networks like long short-term memory (LSTM) have proven remarkably difficult to surpass in terms of daily hydrograph metrics on known, comparable benchmarks. Outside of hydrology, Transformers have now become the model of choice for sequential prediction tasks, making it a curious architecture to investigate. Here, we first show that a vanilla Transformer architecture is not competitive against LSTM on the widely benchmarked CAMELS dataset, and lagged especially for the high-flow metrics due to short-term processes. However, a recurrence-free variant of Transformer can obtain mixed comparisons with LSTM, producing the same Kling-Gupta efficiency coefficient (KGE), along with other metrics. The lack of advantages for the Transformer is linked to the Markovian nature of the hydrologic prediction problem. Similar to LSTM, the Transformer can also merge multiple forcing dataset to improve model performance. While the Transformer results are not higher than current state-of-the-art, we still learned some valuable lessons: (1) the vanilla Transformer architecture is not suitable for hydrologic modeling; (2) the proposed recurrence-free modification can improve Transformer performance so future work can continue to test more of such modifications; and (3) the prediction limits on the dataset should be close to the current state-of-the-art model. As a non-recurrent model, the Transformer may bear scale advantages for learning from bigger datasets and storing knowledge. This work serves as a reference point for future modifications of the model.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Jun 2023.

Builds on

11 of 38 references.

References · 11

  1. 2020End-to-End Object Detection with Transformerscited by 7,384
  2. 2018Know What You Don't Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuADcited by 1,538
  3. 2019A Comparative Study on Transformer vs RNN in Speech Applicationscited by 210
  4. 2019Towards Learning Universal, Regional, and Local Hydrological Behaviors via Machine-Learning Applied to Large-Sample Datasetscited by 68
  5. 2019Enhancing streamflow forecast and extracting insights using long-short term memory networks with data integration at continental scalescited by 27
  6. 2020From calibration to parameter learning: Harnessing the scaling effects of big data in geoscientific modelingcited by 26
  7. 2022Neural Language Models are not Born Equal to Fit Brain Data, but Training Helpscited by 26
  8. 2022Differentiable, learnable, regionalized process-based models with physical outputs can approach state-of-the-art hydrologic prediction accuracycited by 21
  9. 2021The data synergy effects of time-series deep learning models in hydrologycited by 10
  10. 2020Prediction in ungauged regions with sparse flow duration curves and input-selection ensemble modelingcited by 9
  11. 2023Temporal Fusion Transformers for Streamflow Prediction: Value of Combining Attention with Recurrencecited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 0; 2025: 6; 2026: 1.

9 papers.