Rethinking Evaluation Metrics in Hydrological Deep Learning: Insights from Torrent Flow Velocity Prediction

Accurate estimation of flow velocities in torrents and steep rivers is essential for flood risk assessment, sediment transport analysis, and the sustainable management of water resources. While deep learning models are increasingly applied to such tasks, their evaluation often depends on statistical metrics that may yield conflicting interpretations. The objective of this study is to clarify how different evaluation metrics influence the interpretation of hydrological deep learning models. We analyze two models of flow velocity prediction in a torrential creek in Taiwan. Although the models differ in architecture, the critical distinction lies in the datasets used: the first model was trained on May–June data, whereas the second model incorporated May–August data. Four performance metrics were examined—root mean square error (RMSE), Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), Willmott’s index of agreement (d), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). Quantitatively, the first model attained RMSE = 0.0471 m/s, NSE = 0.519, and MAPE = 7.78%, whereas the second model produced RMSE = 0.0572 m/s, NSE = 0.678, and MAPE = 11.56%. The results reveal a paradox. The first model achieved lower RMSE and MAPE, indicating predictions closer to the observed values, but its NSE fell below the 0.65 threshold often cited by reviewers as grounds for rejection. In contrast, the second model exceeded this NSE threshold and would likely be considered acceptable, despite producing larger errors in absolute terms. This paradox highlights the novelty of the study: model evaluation outcomes can be driven more by data variability and the choice of metric than by model architecture. This underscores the risk of misinterpretation if a single metric is used in isolation. For sustainability-oriented hydrology, robust assessment requires reporting multiple metrics and interpreting them in a balanced manner to support disaster risk reduction, resilient water management, and climate adaptation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Sustainability
Published
2025-09-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198658
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Flood Risk Assessment and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.21

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Rethinking Evaluation Metrics in Hydrological Deep Learning: Insights from Torrent Flow Velocity Prediction

Kieu Anh Nguyen, Walter Chen, Bor‐Shiun Lin
2 citations
Sustainability
Flood Risk Assessment and Management
2.21
article

Rethinking Evaluation Metrics in Hydrological Deep Learning: Insights from Torrent Flow Velocity Prediction

Kieu Anh Nguyen, Walter Chen, Bor‐Shiun Lin
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Accurate estimation of flow velocities in torrents and steep rivers is essential for flood risk assessment, sediment transport analysis, and the sustainable management of water resources. While deep learning models are increasingly applied to such tasks, their evaluation often depends on statistical metrics that may yield conflicting interpretations. The objective of this study is to clarify how different evaluation metrics influence the interpretation of hydrological deep learning models. We analyze two models of flow velocity prediction in a torrential creek in Taiwan. Although the models differ in architecture, the critical distinction lies in the datasets used: the first model was trained on May–June data, whereas the second model incorporated May–August data. Four performance metrics were examined—root mean square error (RMSE), Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), Willmott’s index of agreement (d), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). Quantitatively, the first model attained RMSE = 0.0471 m/s, NSE = 0.519, and MAPE = 7.78%, whereas the second model produced RMSE = 0.0572 m/s, NSE = 0.678, and MAPE = 11.56%. The results reveal a paradox. The first model achieved lower RMSE and MAPE, indicating predictions closer to the observed values, but its NSE fell below the 0.65 threshold often cited by reviewers as grounds for rejection. In contrast, the second model exceeded this NSE threshold and would likely be considered acceptable, despite producing larger errors in absolute terms. This paradox highlights the novelty of the study: model evaluation outcomes can be driven more by data variability and the choice of metric than by model architecture. This underscores the risk of misinterpretation if a single metric is used in isolation. For sustainability-oriented hydrology, robust assessment requires reporting multiple metrics and interpreting them in a balanced manner to support disaster risk reduction, resilient water management, and climate adaptation.

SustainabilityVol. 17(19)
National Taipei University of Technology (TW), Sitronix Technology (Taiwan) (TW)
National Science and Technology Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Flood Risk Assessment and Management
2.21
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.