2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128779
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Physics-constrained Gaussian process regression for soil moisture dynamics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 68 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, more practical numerical solutions which can adapt to a variety of complex initial and boundary conditions (Cui & Zhu, 2018; Mao et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2016), use more flexible forms of soil and water parameter models (Vanderborght et al., 2017), and also provide better performance for unsteady flows that are difficult with analytical solutions (Cui & Zhu, 2018) are gradually being investigated and developed. However, although the accuracy and reliability of the numerical solution method are sufficiently validated, the uncertainty of the model structure and the demanding requirements on the parameters of the hydraulic and soil characteristic curves limit its application to SM prediction problems (Gupta et al., 2012; He et al., 2022; Pagès et al., 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Therefore, more practical numerical solutions which can adapt to a variety of complex initial and boundary conditions (Cui & Zhu, 2018; Mao et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2016), use more flexible forms of soil and water parameter models (Vanderborght et al., 2017), and also provide better performance for unsteady flows that are difficult with analytical solutions (Cui & Zhu, 2018) are gradually being investigated and developed. However, although the accuracy and reliability of the numerical solution method are sufficiently validated, the uncertainty of the model structure and the demanding requirements on the parameters of the hydraulic and soil characteristic curves limit its application to SM prediction problems (Gupta et al., 2012; He et al., 2022; Pagès et al., 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kornelsen and Coulibaly (2014) used HYDRUS-1D to generate a large number of physically meaningful samples and added them to the training set as real data. He et al (2022) used the variance of the Gaussian process prediction to characterize the uncertainty of the model and, based on this, assigned different weights to the PM and machine learning and thus obtained a weighted average of fused results of the two methods, achieving a combination of the two models. However, on the one hand these studies tend to use simpler structured machine learning methods and are less involved in deep learning methods with more complex structures, better fitting abilities, and more representativeness; on the other hand, these studies focus on artificially expanding the data in the training set for the combined framework of physical mechanisms and data-driven methods or implementing physical mechanisms embedded in machine learning from a statistical point of view.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The temporal dynamics of soil moisture are typically considered as a stochastic process, which is mainly driven by stochastic precipitation events [6,7]. Lots of investigations into temporal variations and the time stability of soil moisture with different ecosystems or under different climate conditions were carried out through ground or remote sensing-based data [8][9][10][11][12][13]. Stochastic soil moisture dynamic models were developed for different conditions of soil, topography, and vegetation [14][15][16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%