IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0350095.html

Comparison of scenario reduction approaches for reservoir inflow timeseries generated by a Bayesian Neural Network

Author

Listed:
  • Ja-Ho Koo
  • Edo Abraham
  • Andreja Jonoski
  • Dimitri P Solomatine

Abstract

Dealing with uncertainty in predicted inflows presents a major challenge in optimal reservoir flood control. Scenario-based stochastic control approaches address this by generating multiple inflow time series from probabilistic models, each representing a possible future with associated likelihoods. However, using too many scenarios increases computational complexity, while too few may compromise representativeness. Although the two critical steps of scenario generation and reduction have been extensively explored in other fields, their application to reservoir inflow dynamics remains limited. This study develops and applies a probabilistic data-driven model, specifically, a Bayesian Neural Network (BNN), for scenario generation. While the model exhibits limitations in predicting peak inflows due to data scarcity, it effectively captures temporal dependencies in inflow time series and achieves high short-term accuracy, as measured by the Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency Coefficient (NSE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), though performance declines over longer horizons. For scenario reduction, four distance measures widely used in other domains, i.e., the Manhattan, Euclidean, Wasserstein, and energy distances, are evaluated. Experimental results show that the energy distance best preserves the statistical properties of the full scenario set, followed by the Manhattan and Euclidean distances. However, in terms of retaining extreme inflow scenarios, which are critical for flood control, the Manhattan and Euclidean distances outperform others based on a custom index measuring the envelope size of the original scenario set using the l1-norm. In terms of computational efficiency of scenario reduction approaches, the energy distance is the most expensive (quadratic in m, the number of reduced scenarios), while the Wasserstein scales linearly. In the examples used, reduced sets are shown to adequately capture extremes when the number of scenarios m ≥ 30. Considering the trade-off between preserving extremes and computational cost, the Manhattan and Euclidean distances with m = 30 are recommended as a practical choice for reservoir inflow scenario reduction.

Suggested Citation

  • Ja-Ho Koo & Edo Abraham & Andreja Jonoski & Dimitri P Solomatine, 2026. "Comparison of scenario reduction approaches for reservoir inflow timeseries generated by a Bayesian Neural Network," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(5), pages 1-24, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0350095
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0350095
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0350095
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0350095&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0350095?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dinesh Kumar Vishwakarma & Salim Heddam & Arpit Gaur & Ravindra Kumar Tiwari & Ozgur Kisi & Anurag Malik & Chetak Bishnoi & Abed Alataway & Ahmed Z. Dewidar & Mohamed A. Mattar, 2025. "Improving Streamflow Forecasting Efficiency Using Signal Decomposition Approaches," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 39(12), pages 6459-6492, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0350095. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.