This dataset includes model inputs (specifically, weather and flags for predicted ice-cover) and 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 model inputs (specifically, weather and flags for predicted ice-cover) and 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 model inputs (specifically, weather and flags for predicted ice-cover) and 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 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).