Water-Balance Physics-Informed Neural Network for Daily Streamflow Prediction: A Single-Catchment Comparative Study Using CAMELS-GB v2

Authors

  • Ghifari Maulana Idroes Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6217-9067
  • Nazrul Effendy Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1276-4564
  • Fatimah Zaharany Annissa Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58524/ijhes.v5i3.1651

Abstract

Accurate daily streamflow prediction remains challenging because rainfall–runoff dynamics are nonlinear, temporally dependent, and subject to water-mass conservation. This study examines whether a simplified catchment water-balance constraint improves the internal consistency of a physics-informed neural network (WB-PINN) without compromising predictive accuracy. Using 18,993 daily observations (1970–2022) from Catchment 31010 in CAMELS-GB v2, the WB-PINN jointly estimates discharge, latent storage, and an evapotranspiration scaling factor. Its loss function combines prediction error with a water-balance residual weighted by λ. We evaluated performance on a chronological independent test period (2012–2022) against Ridge regression, support vector regression, XGBoost, a multilayer perceptron, and an LSTM. We tested five physics-loss weights and additional regularization controls to distinguish physical constraints from generic regularization effects. At λ = 0.001, mean validation water-balance loss decreased from 13.69 to 8.22, with nearly unchanged accuracy (NSE 0.8419 versus 0.8433 without the constraint). On the test set, LSTM performed best (NSE 0.8673; RMSE 0.3772 mm/day), while WB-PINN ranked second numerically (NSE 0.8209; RMSE 0.4381 mm/day). Paired bootstrap analysis found no statistically significant differences between WB-PINN and XGBoost or support vector regression, whereas LSTM achieved lower RMSE and higher NSE. Removing antecedent discharge reduced accuracy across all models. Because storage and actual evapotranspiration were unobserved, reduced residuals do not establish hydrological realism. Test-period diagnostics revealed a persistent mean water-balance residual of −0.7070 mm/day and predicted evapotranspiration substantially below the long-term water-balance estimate. Thus, weak water-balance regularization reduced the imposed residual with little loss of predictive accuracy but did not achieve close water-balance closure or outperform the strongest data-driven model.

References

Bhasme, P., Vagadiya, J., & Bhatia, U. (2022). (PDF) Enhancing predictive skills in physically-consistent way: Physics Informed Machine Learning for Hydrological Processes. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351063788_Enhancing_predictive_skills_in_physically-consistent_way_Physics_Informed_Machine_Learning_for_Hydrological_Processes

Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016). XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '16, 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785

Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995). Support-vector networks. Machine Learning, 20(3), 273–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994018

Coxon, G., Zheng, Y., Barbedo, R., Cooper, H., Fileni, F., Fowler, H. J., Fry, M., Green, A., Gribbin, T., Harfoot, H., Lewis, E., Neto, G. G. R., Qiu, X., Salwey, S., & Wendt, D. E. (2026). CAMELS-GB v2: Hydro-meteorological time series and landscape attributes for 671 catchments in Great Britain. Earth System Science Data, 18(6), 4345–4371. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-18-4345-2026

Effendy, N., Fadhilah, M. Z. A., Kraton, D. W., & Abrar, H. A. (2024). The prediction of thermal sensation in building using support vector machine and extreme gradient boosting. IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence (IJ-AI), 13(3), 2963–2970. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijai.v13.i3.pp2963-2970

Effendy, N., Shinoda, K., Furui, S., & Jitapunkul, S. (2009). Automatic recognition of Indonesian declarative questions and statements using polynomial coefficients of the pitch contours. Acoustical Science and Technology, 30, 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1250/ast.30.249

Feng, D., Beck, H., Lawson, K., & Shen, C. (2023). The suitability of differentiable, physics-informed machine learning hydrologic models for ungauged regions and climate change impact assessment. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 27(12), 2357–2373. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2357-2023

Frame, J. M., Kratzert, F., Gupta, H. V., Ullrich, P., & Nearing, G. S. (2023). On strictly enforced mass conservation constraints for modelling the Rainfall-Runoff process. Hydrological Processes, 37(3), e14847. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14847

Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., & Martinez, G. F. (2009). Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling. Journal of Hydrology, 377(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003

Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997). Long Short-Term Memory | Neural Computation | MIT Press. https://direct.mit.edu/neco/article-abstract/9/8/1735/6109/Long-Short-Term-Memory?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Hoedt, P.-J., Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Halmich, C., Holzleitner, M., Nearing, G. S., Hochreiter, S., & Klambauer, G. (2021). MC-LSTM: Mass-Conserving LSTM. Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, 4275–4286. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v139/hoedt21a.html

Hoerl, A. E., & Kennard, R. W. (1970). Ridge Regression: Biased Estimation for Nonorthogonal Problems. Technometrics, 12(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/1267351

Idroes, G. M., Hizir, F. A., & Abiyyu, M. Z. (2026). Short-Term Reliability and Long-Term Limits of Stable Log-ARIMA for Population Forecasting Across Southeast Asia | Infolitika Journal of Data Science. https://heca-analitika.com/ijds/article/view/425

Karniadakis, G. E., Kevrekidis, I. G., Lu, L., Perdikaris, P., Wang, S., & Yang, L. (2021). Physics-informed machine learning. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(6), 422–440. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-021-00314-5

Knoben, W. J. M., Freer, J. E., & Woods, R. A. (2019). Technical note: Inherent benchmark or not? Comparing Nash–Sutcliffe and Kling–Gupta efficiency scores. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 23(10), 4323–4331. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019

Kraft, B., Jung, M., Körner, M., & Koirala, S. (2022). HESS - Towards hybrid modeling of the global hydrological cycle. https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/1579/2022/

Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Brenner, C., Schulz, K., & Herrnegger, M. (2018). HESS - Rainfall–runoff modelling using Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks. https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/6005/2018/

Kurniawan, E. D., Effendy, N., Arif, A., Dwiantoro, K., & Muddin, N. (2023). Soft sensor for the prediction of oxygen content in boiler flue gas using neural networks and extreme gradient boosting. Neural Computing and Applications, 35(1), 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-07771-8

Lees, T., Buechel, M., Anderson, B., Slater, L., Reece, S., Coxon, G., & Dadson, S. J. (2021). Benchmarking data-driven rainfall–runoff models in Great Britain: A comparison of long short-term memory (LSTM)-based models with four lumped conceptual models. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 25(10), 5517–5534. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5517-2021

Nearing, G. S., Kratzert, F., Sampson, A., Pelissier, C. S., Klotz, D., Frame, J. M., Prieto, C., & Gupta, H. V. (2021). What Role Does Hydrological Science Play in the Age of Machine Learning? - Nearing—2021—Water Resources Research—Wiley Online Library. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020wr028091

Noviandy, T. R., Idroes, G. M., Lala, A., Helwani, Z., & Idroes, R. (2025). Inductive Biases in Feature Reduction for QSAR: SHAP vs. Autoencoders | Infolitika Journal of Data Science. https://heca-analitika.com/ijds/article/view/306

Pedregosa, F., Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Varoquaux, G., Org, N., Gramfort, A., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Michel, V., Fr, L., Thirion, B., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., … Cournapeau, D. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. MACHINE LEARNING IN PYTHON.

Rabba, D. F., Wardana, A. N. I., & Effendy, N. (2022). Intermittent Oscillation Diagnosis in a Control Loop Using Extreme Gradient Boosting. Jurnal Nasional Teknik Elektro, 11(3), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.25077/jnte.v11n3.1040.2022

Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2019). Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 378, 686–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045

Downloads

Published

2026-10-26

How to Cite

Idroes, G. M., Effendy, N., & Annissa, F. Z. (2026). Water-Balance Physics-Informed Neural Network for Daily Streamflow Prediction: A Single-Catchment Comparative Study Using CAMELS-GB v2. International Journal of Hydrological and Environmental for Sustainability, 5(3), 346-367. https://doi.org/10.58524/ijhes.v5i3.1651