2005
DOI: 10.1029/2004wr003608
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Applicability of statistical learning algorithms in groundwater quality modeling

Abstract: [1] Four algorithms are outlined, each of which has interesting features for predicting contaminant levels in groundwater. Artificial neural networks (ANN), support vector machines (SVM), locally weighted projection regression (LWPR), and relevance vector machines (RVM) are utilized as surrogates for a relatively complex and time-consuming mathematical model to simulate nitrate concentration in groundwater at specified receptors. Nitrates in the application reported in this paper are due to on-ground nitrogen … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
75
0
3

Year Published

2006
2006
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 132 publications
(78 citation statements)
references
References 68 publications
(121 reference statements)
0
75
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…However, these kinds of models are not always efficient, especially in hydrogeological heterogeneous models which simulate complex and non linear phenomena. For such models, modern statistical learning algorithms can show much better ability to build accurate models with strong predictive capabilities (Khalil et al 2004;Marrel et al 2006).…”
Section: Response Surfacesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, these kinds of models are not always efficient, especially in hydrogeological heterogeneous models which simulate complex and non linear phenomena. For such models, modern statistical learning algorithms can show much better ability to build accurate models with strong predictive capabilities (Khalil et al 2004;Marrel et al 2006).…”
Section: Response Surfacesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Over the past few years there have been various applications of SVM in hydrologic science [Dibike et al, 2001;See and Abrahart, 2001;Liong and Sivapragasam, 2002;Asefa and Kemblowski, 2002;Gill et al, 2003Gill et al, , 2006Asefa et al, 2004;Khalil, 2005;Khalil et al, 2005aKhalil et al, , 2005bKhalil et al, , 2005cKhalil et al, , 2006Asefa et al, 2005]. It is a far more robust machine than ANNs [Khalil, 2005;Khalil et al, 2005a], and it has been seen to reduce the dimensionality of the calibration procedure considerably as compared to a physical/conceptual model, e.g., Sacramento soil moisture accounting (SACSMA) model. There are three SVM parameters that must be determined through calibration: trade-off C, tolerance e, and kernel parameter g. The model tested here is the same as the one already used in a previous study for soil moisture prediction [Khalil et al, 2005b].…”
Section: Case Study Iii: Svm Soil Moisture Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ANN models have proved to be superior to mechanistic models when data are limited and numerous assumptions have to be made to solve the physically based equations. For instance, in-stream nitrogen concentrations, which are affected by land use/land classification, vegetation dynamics and in-stream nitrogen transformations, were simulated reasonably well with the ANN approach (Lek et al 1999, Khalil et al 2005.…”
Section: Link Between Swat and Annmentioning
confidence: 83%