PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 19, 2026SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología0 citationsOpen Access

Comparative Analysis of Hybrid Deep Learning Models for Dam Inflow Prediction: LSTM-GRU, CNN-LSTM, Attention-LSTM, and Transformer Approaches

MSMaryam SafaviAKAbbas Khashei-SiukiRHReza Hashemi

Key Points

  • The research aims to compare various hybrid deep learning models for predicting dam inflow under hydrological variability.
  • Utilized a 14-year dataset from Jiroft Dam in Iran
  • Compared four hybrid architectures: LSTM-GRU, CNN-LSTM, Attention-LSTM, and Transformer
  • Employed advanced validation methods including statistical tests and visual representations
  • LSTM-GRU achieved the best performance with 0.873 R² and 29.73 m³/s RMSE
  • Flow rates varied significantly with winter maxima at 391.5 m³/s and autumn minima at 56.2 m³/s
  • All models predicted lower peak flows with a percentage bias ranging from -14.34% to -20.86%
  • Precipitation and agricultural interactions emerged as key variables in forecasting

Abstract

This study offers the first comprehensive comparison among four hybrid deep learning architectures—LSTM-GRU, CNN-LSTM, Attention-LSTM, and Transformer—for multipurpose dam inflow forecasting under severe hydrological variability. The study employed a 14-year dataset (168 observations, 2010-2023) obtained from Jiroft Dam in Iran and framed with hydrological and operational parameters including precipitation, reservoir capacity, agricultural discharge, and turbine functions. The LSTM-GRU architecture yielded the best performance by attaining 0.873 R² and 29.73 m³/s root mean square error (RMSE) during the validation procedure and demonstrating the best balance among accuracy and generalizability. The model robustness was confirmed by advanced validation methods including Taylor diagrams, violin diagrams, and statistical testing (Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Ljung-Box, and Breusch-Pagan tests). Seasonal analysis revealed a seven times change in flow rates ranging across winter maxima of 391.5 m³/s and autumn minima of 56.2 m³/s. The models showed a widespread tendency to predict lower peak flows (percentage bias, PBIAS: -14.34% to -20.86%), suggesting the presence of operational safety buffers. Precipitation–agricultural interactions were identified as the key forecasting variable (importance = 0.999). The model provides real-time support for decision-making on reservoir management, flood protection, and potable water supply under changing environmental circumstances and provides a validated model for AI-accelerated water resource management.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Safavi et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6996a7d3ecb39a600b3ede0ahttps://doi.org/10.22077/jwhr.2025.9938.1185
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1A study on the GRU-LSTM hybrid model with dual attention mechanism for reservoir water level forecasting2026 · 1 citations
  2. 2Inter-Comparison of Deep Learning Models for Flood Forecasting in Ethiopia’s Upper Awash Basin2026 · 2 citations
  3. 3An Enhanced Hybrid CNN–LSTM Model for Improved Precipitation Forecasting2026
  4. 4Research on Machine Learning Hybrid Framework for Flood Forecasting by Integrating Physical Processes of Runoff Generation and Vectorized Flood Processes2024
  5. 5The Application of Transformers and Hybrid Deep Learning Models for Streamflow Forecasting2024 · 2 citations