2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2022.104576
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of analytic network process and artificial neural network models for flash flood susceptibility assessment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Among software models, HEC‐RAS (Ghimire et al, 2022; Namara et al, 2022; Sejati et al, 2022), HEC‐HMS (Altaf & Romshoo, 2022; Nadeem et al, 2022; Shah & Lone, 2022), MIKEs (Mike11, Mike21, Mike Flood, Mike Urban) (Dikici et al, 2022; Goumas et al, 2022; Li et al, 2022; Zhang et al, 2022; Zhou, Teng, et al, 2022; Zhou, Zheng, et al, 2022), Bentley Open Flow (de Andrade et al, 2022; Ellwood et al, 2022; Khakhar et al, 2022), Flo‐2D (Gerundo et al, 2022; Komolafe, 2022; Liu et al, 2022; Wang, Luo, et al, 2022), and CCHE (Lee et al, 2020; Kakati et al, 2022; Poorzaman et al, 2022) models can be mentioned. Also, the most applied numerical models include artificial neural network (Ahmad et al, 2022; Dahri et al, 2022; Wang, Yang, et al, 2022), random forest (Abedi et al, 2022; El‐Magd & Ahmed, 2022; Ha & Kang, 2022; Zhu & Zhang, 2022), and analytic hierarchy process (Bouamrane et al, 2022; Roy et al, 2023; Souissi et al, 2022; Vilasan & Kapse, 2022).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among software models, HEC‐RAS (Ghimire et al, 2022; Namara et al, 2022; Sejati et al, 2022), HEC‐HMS (Altaf & Romshoo, 2022; Nadeem et al, 2022; Shah & Lone, 2022), MIKEs (Mike11, Mike21, Mike Flood, Mike Urban) (Dikici et al, 2022; Goumas et al, 2022; Li et al, 2022; Zhang et al, 2022; Zhou, Teng, et al, 2022; Zhou, Zheng, et al, 2022), Bentley Open Flow (de Andrade et al, 2022; Ellwood et al, 2022; Khakhar et al, 2022), Flo‐2D (Gerundo et al, 2022; Komolafe, 2022; Liu et al, 2022; Wang, Luo, et al, 2022), and CCHE (Lee et al, 2020; Kakati et al, 2022; Poorzaman et al, 2022) models can be mentioned. Also, the most applied numerical models include artificial neural network (Ahmad et al, 2022; Dahri et al, 2022; Wang, Yang, et al, 2022), random forest (Abedi et al, 2022; El‐Magd & Ahmed, 2022; Ha & Kang, 2022; Zhu & Zhang, 2022), and analytic hierarchy process (Bouamrane et al, 2022; Roy et al, 2023; Souissi et al, 2022; Vilasan & Kapse, 2022).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to existing studies, machine learning models are widely used in susceptibility prediction modeling due to their powerful ability to handle non-linear data with different scales and from different types of sources (Zhang et al, 2022). Recently, the research field of machine learning models has been rapidly expanding, with models such as multilayer perceptron (MLP) (Haribabu et al, 2021), support vector machine (SVM) (Xiong et al, 2019), logistic regression (LR) (Nguyen and Bouvier, 2019;Huang et al, 2020a), random forest (RF) (Abedi et al, 2022), decision trees (Ngo et al, 2021), and artificial neural networks (Dahri et al, 2022).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In recent years, machine learning based models are well-known as the most advanced quantitative methods for flood susceptibility mapping. Common machine learning based models used for flood susceptibility modeling are Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) [1,2], Support Vector Machines (SVM) [3,4], Random Forest [5,6], K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) [7,8], Decision Trees based models [9,10], Logistic Regression [11,12], Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) [5,13]. In general, these mentioned machine learning models performed well for flood susceptibility modeling and mapping at different areas of the world.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%