Contrastive self-supervised learning for streamflow forecasting: a multi-station comparison with supervised models

ArticleAçık Erişim

Özet

Daily streamflow forecasting is complicated by the fact that the predictive value of recent observations shifts considerably depending on the hydrological character of the catchment. This study develops a regime-aware, window-adaptive framework to compare conventional supervised learning algorithms — XGBoost, Random Forest, LSTM, and GRU — against four contrastive self-supervised (SSL) approaches: SimCLR, TS2Vec, CPC, and TempContrast. Experiments were conducted at four gauging stations in Türkiye, each representing a distinct hydroclimatic regime. The SSL stage employs a shared LSTM encoder pretrained with hydrology-informed augmentations and is evaluated across window lengths of 7, 14, 30, and 60 days, allowing a direct assessment of how context length interacts with catchment memory. A bias-regularised loss function is applied during fine-tuning to reduce systematic prediction errors — an aspect that has received limited attention in prior SSL-based hydrological studies. Model performance was quantified using R2, NSE, KGE, Willmott’s d, RMSE, MAE, MBE, and PBIAS. No single model emerged as universally superior. At the strongly seasonal Demirkapı station, supervised models reached Test R2 = 0.96–0.97, while SSL peaked near 0.91. At the low-flow, repetitive Beyşehir station, short-window SSL outperformed all supervised baselines, achieving Test R2 ≈ 0.93–0.94 against 0.89–0.90. At the noisier Akçay and Karadere stations, short-lag supervised models proved more reliable. These results point to a consistent pattern: the effectiveness of any given approach depends heavily on the memory structure and signal regularity of the basin in question, rather than on algorithmic complexity alone. © 2026 The Authors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

RDL Kalıcı Bağlantı (PID)
https://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/10148Resmi atıflarda kullanılan kalıcı adres
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2026.104341Yayıncı resmi DOI adresi
Tam Kayıt
AlanDeğerDil
dc.contributor.authorDalkilic, H. Yıldırım
dc.contributor.authorKilinc, H. Cagan
dc.contributor.authorYurtsever, Adem
dc.contributor.authorKatipoğlu, O. Mert
dc.contributor.authorYeşilyurt, S. Nur
dc.date.accessioned2026-10-18T20:25:24.691951659Z
dc.date.available2026-10-18T20:25:24.691951659Z
dc.date.issued2026
dc.description.abstractDaily streamflow forecasting is complicated by the fact that the predictive value of recent observations shifts considerably depending on the hydrological character of the catchment. This study develops a regime-aware, window-adaptive framework to compare conventional supervised learning algorithms — XGBoost, Random Forest, LSTM, and GRU — against four contrastive self-supervised (SSL) approaches: SimCLR, TS2Vec, CPC, and TempContrast. Experiments were conducted at four gauging stations in Türkiye, each representing a distinct hydroclimatic regime. The SSL stage employs a shared LSTM encoder pretrained with hydrology-informed augmentations and is evaluated across window lengths of 7, 14, 30, and 60 days, allowing a direct assessment of how context length interacts with catchment memory. A bias-regularised loss function is applied during fine-tuning to reduce systematic prediction errors — an aspect that has received limited attention in prior SSL-based hydrological studies. Model performance was quantified using R2, NSE, KGE, Willmott’s d, RMSE, MAE, MBE, and PBIAS. No single model emerged as universally superior. At the strongly seasonal Demirkapı station, supervised models reached Test R2 = 0.96–0.97, while SSL peaked near 0.91. At the low-flow, repetitive Beyşehir station, short-window SSL outperformed all supervised baselines, achieving Test R2 ≈ 0.93–0.94 against 0.89–0.90. At the noisier Akçay and Karadere stations, short-lag supervised models proved more reliable. These results point to a consistent pattern: the effectiveness of any given approach depends heavily on the memory structure and signal regularity of the basin in question, rather than on algorithmic complexity alone. © 2026 The Authors.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.asej.2026.104341
dc.identifier.eissn2090-4495
dc.identifier.issn2090-4479
dc.identifier.issue9
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105044197967
dc.identifier.startpage104341
dc.identifier.urihttps://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/10148
dc.identifier.volume17
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001822524600001
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherAin Shams University
dc.relation.ispartofAin Shams Engineering Journal
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectArtificial Intelligence
dc.subjectContrastive representation learning
dc.subjectSelf-supervised learning
dc.subjectStreamflow prediction
dc.subjectTemporal generalization
dc.subjectTime-series forecasting
dc.subjectCatchments
dc.subjectComputational complexity
dc.subjectContrastive Learning
dc.subjectForecasting
dc.subjectLong short-term memory
dc.subjectRandom forests
dc.subjectStream flow
dc.subjectSupervised learning
dc.subjectAdaptive framework
dc.subjectGeneralisation
dc.subjectMulti-stations
dc.subjectPredictive values
dc.subjectStreamflow forecasting
dc.subjectTime series forecasting
dc.subjectSystematic errors
dc.titleContrastive self-supervised learning for streamflow forecasting: a multi-station comparison with supervised models
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
rdl.citation.scopus0
rdl.citation.wos0
rdl.oa.statusgold
rdl.source.indexSCOPUS
rdl.source.indexWOS
rdl.wos.indexScience Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)