This dataset provides model specifications used to estimate water temperature from a process-based model (Hipsey et al. 2019). The format is a single JSON file indexed for each lake based on the "site_id". This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 68 lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/P9AQPIVD).

This dataset provides model specifications used to estimate water temperature from a process-based model (Hipsey et al. 2019). The format is a single JSON file indexed for each lake based on the "site_id". This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 68 lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/P9AQPIVD).

This dataset includes evaluation data ("test" data) and performance metrics for water temperature predictions from multiple modeling frameworks. Process-Based (PB) models were configured and calibrated with training data to reduce root-mean squared error. Uncalibrated models used default configurations (PB0; see Winslow et al. 2016 for details) and no parameters were adjusted according to model fit with observations. Deep Learning (DL) models were Long Short-Term Memory artificial recurrent neural network models which used training data to adjust model structure and weights for temperature predictions (Jia et al. 2019). Process-Guided Deep Learning (PGDL) models were DL models with an added physical constraint for energy conservation as a loss term. These models were pre-trained with uncalibrated Process-Based model outputs (PB0) before training on actual temperature observations. Performance was measured as root-mean squared errors relative to temperature observations during the test period. Test data include compiled water temperature data from a variety of sources, including the Water Quality Portal (Read et al. 2017), the North Temperate Lakes Long-TERM Ecological Research Program (https://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/), the Minnesota department of Natural Resources, and the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (gleon.org). This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 68 lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/P9AQPIVD).

This dataset includes evaluation data ("test" data) and performance metrics for water temperature predictions from multiple modeling frameworks. Process-Based (PB) models were configured and calibrated with training data to reduce root-mean squared error. Uncalibrated models used default configurations (PB0; see Winslow et al. 2016 for details) and no parameters were adjusted according to model fit with observations. Deep Learning (DL) models were Long Short-Term Memory artificial recurrent neural network models which used training data to adjust model structure and weights for temperature predictions (Jia et al. 2019). Process-Guided Deep Learning (PGDL) models were DL models with an added physical constraint for energy conservation as a loss term. These models were pre-trained with uncalibrated Process-Based model outputs (PB0) before training on actual temperature observations. Performance was measured as root-mean squared errors relative to temperature observations during the test period. Test data include compiled water temperature data from a variety of sources, including the Water Quality Portal (Read et al. 2017), the North Temperate Lakes Long-TERM Ecological Research Program (https://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/), the Minnesota department of Natural Resources, and the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (gleon.org). This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 68 lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/P9AQPIVD).

This dataset includes evaluation data ("test" data) and performance metrics for water temperature predictions from multiple modeling frameworks. Process-Based (PB) models were configured and calibrated with training data to reduce root-mean squared error. Uncalibrated models used default configurations (PB0; see Winslow et al. 2016 for details) and no parameters were adjusted according to model fit with observations. Deep Learning (DL) models were Long Short-Term Memory artificial recurrent neural network models which used training data to adjust model structure and weights for temperature predictions (Jia et al. 2019). Process-Guided Deep Learning (PGDL) models were DL models with an added physical constraint for energy conservation as a loss term. These models were pre-trained with uncalibrated Process-Based model outputs (PB0) before training on actual temperature observations. Performance was measured as root-mean squared errors relative to temperature observations during the test period. Test data include compiled water temperature data from a variety of sources, including the Water Quality Portal (Read et al. 2017), the North Temperate Lakes Long-TERM Ecological Research Program (https://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/), the Minnesota department of Natural Resources, and the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (gleon.org). This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 68 lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/P9AQPIVD).

This dataset includes evaluation data ("test" data) and performance metrics for water temperature predictions from multiple modeling frameworks. Process-Based (PB) models were configured and calibrated with training data to reduce root-mean squared error. Uncalibrated models used default configurations (PB0; see Winslow et al. 2016 for details) and no parameters were adjusted according to model fit with observations. Deep Learning (DL) models were Long Short-Term Memory artificial recurrent neural network models which used training data to adjust model structure and weights for temperature predictions (Jia et al. 2019). Process-Guided Deep Learning (PGDL) models were DL models with an added physical constraint for energy conservation as a loss term. These models were pre-trained with uncalibrated Process-Based model outputs (PB0) before training on actual temperature observations. Performance was measured as root-mean squared errors relative to temperature observations during the test period. Test data include compiled water temperature data from a variety of sources, including the Water Quality Portal (Read et al. 2017), the North Temperate Lakes Long-TERM Ecological Research Program (https://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/), the Minnesota department of Natural Resources, and the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (gleon.org). This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 68 lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/P9AQPIVD).

Multiple modeling frameworks were used to predict daily temperatures at 0.5m depth intervals for a set of diverse lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Process-Based (PB) models were configured and calibrated with training data to reduce root-mean squared error. Uncalibrated models used default configurations (PB0; see Winslow et al. 2016 for details) and no parameters were adjusted according to model fit with observations. Deep Learning (DL) models were Long Short-Term Memory artificial recurrent neural network models which used training data to adjust model structure and weights for temperature predictions (Jia et al. 2019). Process-Guided Deep Learning (PGDL) models were DL models with an added physical constraint for energy conservation as a loss term. These models were pre-trained with uncalibrated Process-Based model outputs (PB0) before training on actual temperature observations.

Multiple modeling frameworks were used to predict daily temperatures at 0.5m depth intervals for a set of diverse lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Process-Based (PB) models were configured and calibrated with training data to reduce root-mean squared error. Uncalibrated models used default configurations (PB0; see Winslow et al. 2016 for details) and no parameters were adjusted according to model fit with observations. Deep Learning (DL) models were Long Short-Term Memory artificial recurrent neural network models which used training data to adjust model structure and weights for temperature predictions (Jia et al. 2019). Process-Guided Deep Learning (PGDL) models were DL models with an added physical constraint for energy conservation as a loss term. These models were pre-trained with uncalibrated Process-Based model outputs (PB0) before training on actual temperature observations.

Multiple modeling frameworks were used to predict daily temperatures at 0.5m depth intervals for a set of diverse lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Process-Based (PB) models were configured and calibrated with training data to reduce root-mean squared error. Uncalibrated models used default configurations (PB0; see Winslow et al. 2016 for details) and no parameters were adjusted according to model fit with observations. Deep Learning (DL) models were Long Short-Term Memory artificial recurrent neural network models which used training data to adjust model structure and weights for temperature predictions (Jia et al. 2019). Process-Guided Deep Learning (PGDL) models were DL models with an added physical constraint for energy conservation as a loss term. These models were pre-trained with uncalibrated Process-Based model outputs (PB0) before training on actual temperature observations.

This dataset includes "test data" compiled water temperature data from an instrumented buoy on Lake Mendota, WI and discrete (manually sampled) water temperature records from North Temperate Lakes Long-TERM Ecological Research Program (NTL-LTER; https://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/). The buoy is supported by both the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (gleon.org) and the NTL-LTER. The dataset also includes Lake Mendota model erformance as measured as root-mean squared errors relative to temperature observations during the test period. This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 68 lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/P9AQPIVD).