Modeling flood susceptibility using data-driven approaches of naïve Bayes tree, alternating decision tree, and random forest methods

Tsangaratos

et al. 2020

Applied Sciences

Self Cite

This study presents a methodology for constructing groundwater spring potential maps by kernel logistic regression, (KLR), random forest (RF), and alternating decision tree (ADTree) models. The analysis was based on data concerning groundwater springs and fourteen explanatory factors (elevation, slope, aspect, plan curvature, profile curvature, stream power index, sediment transport index, topographic wetness index, distance to streams, distance to roads, normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), lithology, soil, and land use), which were divided into training and validation datasets. Ningtiaota region in the northern territory of Shaanxi Province, China, was considered as a test site. Frequency Ratio method was applied to provide to each factor’s class a coefficient weight, whereas the linear support vector machine method was used as a feature selection method to determine the optimal set of factors. The Receiver Operating Characteristic curve and the area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the performance of each model using the training dataset, with the RF model providing the highest AUC value (0.909) followed by the KLR (0.877) and ADTree (0.812) models. The same performance pattern was estimated based on the validation dataset, with the RF model providing the highest AUC value (0.811) followed by the KLR (0.797) and ADTree (0.773) models. This study highlights that the artificial intelligence approach could be considered as a valid and accurate approach for groundwater spring potential zoning.

Section: Validation and Comparison Of The Results Obtained By The Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Groundwater Spring Potential Mapping Using Artificial Intelligence Approach Based on Kernel Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and Alternating Decision Tree Models

Tsangaratos

et al. 2020

Applied Sciences

Self Cite

“…GESMs were created using each of the four models: ADTree, RF-ADTree, Bagging-ADTree, and LR. Finally, the models were evaluated and validated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and by calculating the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for each model [93][94][95]. The AUC values are between 0 and 1, which can be interpreted following these categories: 0.6-0.7 have poor, 0.6-0.7 medium, 0.7-0.8 good, 0.8-0.9 very good, and 0.9-1 excellent accuracy [9,17,19].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gully Head-Cut Distribution Modeling Using Machine Learning Methods—A Case Study of N.W. Iran

Arabameri

Blaschke

et al. 2019

Water

Self Cite

To more effectively prevent and manage the scourge of gully erosion in arid and semi-arid regions, we present a novel-ensemble intelligence approach-bagging-based alternating decision-tree classifier (bagging-ADTree)-and use it to model a landscape's susceptibility to gully erosion based on 18 gully-erosion conditioning factors. The model's goodness-of-fit and prediction performance are compared to three other machine learning algorithms (single alternating decision tree, rotational-forest-based alternating decision tree (RF-ADTree), and benchmark logistic regression). To achieve this, a gully-erosion inventory was created for the study area, the Chah Mousi watershed, Iran by combining archival records containing reports of gully erosion, remotely sensed data from Google Earth, and geolocated sites of gully head-cuts gathered in a field survey. A total of 119 gully head-cuts were identified and mapped. To train the models' analysis and prediction capabilities, 83 head-cuts (70% of the total) and the corresponding measures of the conditioning factors were input into each model. The results from the models were validated using the data pertaining to the remaining 36 gully locations (30%). Next, the frequency ratio is used to identify which conditioning-factor classes have the strongest correlation with gully erosion. Using random-forest modeling, the relative importance of each of the conditioning factors was determined. Based on the random-forest results, the top eight factors in this study area are distance-to-road, drainage density, distance-to-stream, LU/LC, annual precipitation, topographic wetness index, NDVI, and elevation. Finally, based on goodness-of-fit and AUROC of the success rate curve (SRC) and prediction rate curve (PRC), the results indicate that the bagging-ADTree ensemble model had the best performance, with SRC (0.964) and PRC (0.978). RF-ADTree (SRC = 0.952 and PRC = 0.971), ADTree (SRC = 0.926 and PRC = 0.965), and LR (SRC = 0.867 and PRC = 0.870) were the subsequent best performers. The results also indicate that bagging and RF, as meta-classifiers, improved the performance of the ADTree model as a base classifier. The bagging-ADTree model's results indicate that 24.28% of the study area is classified as having high and very high susceptibility to gully erosion. The new ensemble model accurately Water 2020, 12, 16 2 of 26 identified the areas that are susceptible to gully erosion based on the past patterns of formation, but it also provides highly accurate predictions of future gully development. The novel ensemble method introduced in this research is recommended for use to evaluate the patterns of gullying in arid and semi-arid environments and can effectively identify the most salient conditioning factors that promote the development and expansion of gullies in erosion-susceptible environments.

“…Therefore, in this study, the ROC curve and the AUC are used to assess the prediction capability of models [106][107][108]. The best models tend to have the highest AUC among the models studied [4,109]. ROC curves and AUC values of the training dataset of the three models are shown in Figure 6.…”

Section: Validation and Comparison Of Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landslide Susceptibility Evaluation Using Hybrid Integration of Evidential Belief Function and Machine Learning Techniques

2019

Water

Self Cite

In this study, Random SubSpace-based classification and regression tree (RSCART) was introduced for landslide susceptibility modeling, and CART model and logistic regression (LR) model were used as benchmark models. 263 landslide locations in the study area were randomly divided into two parts (70/30) for training and validation of models. 14 landslide influencing factors were selected, such as slope angle, elevation, aspect, sediment transport index (STI), topographical wetness index (TWI), stream power index (SPI), profile curvature, plan curvature, distance to rivers, distance to road, soil, normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), land use, and lithology. Finally, the hybrid RSCART model and two benchmark models were applied for landslide susceptibility modeling and the receiver operating characteristic curve method is used to evaluate the performance of the model. The susceptibility is quantitatively compared based on each pixel to reveal the system spatial pattern between susceptibility maps. At the same time, area under ROC curve (AUC) and landslide density analysis were used to estimate the prediction ability of landslide susceptibility map. The results showed that the RSCART model is the optimal model with the highest AUC values of 0.852 and 0.827, followed by LR and CART models. The results also illustrate that the hybrid model generally improves the prediction ability of a single landslide susceptibility model.Water 2020, 12, 113 2 of 29 weights of evidence [10][11][12], frequency ratio [13][14][15][16][17], logistic regression [18][19][20][21], linear multivariate regression, multivariate adaptive regression spline [22][23][24], and statistical index [25,26] have been widely used. However, these traditional statistical methods do not provide satisfactory evaluation of the correlation between landslide influencing factors [4,27].Therefore, machine learning technologies have drawn extensive attention, and many kinds of machine learning methods have been developed and used, such as classification and regression trees [28,29], adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems [30,31], fuzzy logic [32,33], alternating decision trees [34][35][36], support vector machine [37][38][39], artificial neural networks [40,41], and random forest [4,[42][43][44][45]. In particular, hybrid models are increasingly used, such as the rotation forest-based decision trees [46,47], frequency ratio-based ANFIS model [48], bagging-based reduced error pruning trees [49], and multiboost-based support vector machines [50].Spatial prediction of landslide is not only the first important step, but also one of the most difficult tasks [31,51]. Many modeling methods have been used in the construction of landslide susceptibility maps in the past, but the accuracy of these models has not been accepted by all researchers [52]. Youssef et al. used CART model to study landslide susceptibility in Wadi Tayyah Basin. The result of post-cart model is not optimal [53]. However, when Felicísimo et al. studied the landslide susceptibility, CART shows...