Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | |
|
SES 3-2-1: Artificial Intelligence machine learning 1 Location: HSB0 Session Chair: Eran Friedler Session Chair: Namrata Karki | |
| Presentation 2 | |
10:45am - 11:00am
Enhancing Explainability in Machine Learning for Urban Drainage: Physic-Leveraged vs. Data-Driven Approaches 1: Unit of Environmental Engineering, Department of Infrastructure Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Sciences, Universität Innsbruck, Technikerstraße 13, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria; 2: Department of Urban Water Management, University of Kaiserslautern-Landau, Paul-Ehrlich-Straße 14, Kaiserslautern, Germany; 3: Independent Researcher; 4: Institute of Geophysics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran; 5: Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran Machine learning is widely used in urban drainage networks, and especially opaque models like the random forest, neural networks, or their variations are frequently used. Opaque models employ thousands of model parameters to model complex relationships in data, which limits the comprehensibility of their results for humans. In this regard, the European “Artificial Intelligence Act” was published in July 2024, specifying a transparent implementation of ML, especially in high-risk areas like critical infrastructure. To address this issue, two trained opaque XGBoost models of previous work are extended with different techniques of post-hoc explainability to understand the model’s decisions. The analysis reveals that the most important input features for both XGBoost models represent the engineered classification into dry or wet flow. The next most important input features for the purely data-driven ML model are related to historical rainfall data. The complex relationship between water flow and historical rainfall data is captured, and high quality data and processing is required to prevent the model from learning incorrect correlations. In contrast, the physics-leveraged ML model includes the output of a hydrodynamic model as an important input feature in the model’s decision, decreasing the influence of historical rainfall data on the model’s decision. | |
