2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predictive mapping of aquatic ecosystems by means of support vector machines and random forests

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Second, adopting a similar approach to the one proposed by Zimmerman et al (2018), we performed a method that combines the 10‐fold cross‐validation and the RF–recursive feature elimination analysis (RFE, see Pedregosa et al, 2011), so that we can balance the construction of the best‐performing model and the risk of overfitting. RF‐RFE is aimed at selecting features by recursively considering smaller and smaller sets of features (Martínez‐Santos et al, 2021). Specifically, RF algorithm is first trained on the entire set of input variables and the importance of each of these is assessed by the impurity‐based criterion.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, adopting a similar approach to the one proposed by Zimmerman et al (2018), we performed a method that combines the 10‐fold cross‐validation and the RF–recursive feature elimination analysis (RFE, see Pedregosa et al, 2011), so that we can balance the construction of the best‐performing model and the risk of overfitting. RF‐RFE is aimed at selecting features by recursively considering smaller and smaller sets of features (Martínez‐Santos et al, 2021). Specifically, RF algorithm is first trained on the entire set of input variables and the importance of each of these is assessed by the impurity‐based criterion.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This can affect the performance of the classifiers by attributing extra weight to an input variable or by adding noise to the final outcomes. Interpretability can also be impaired because the regression coefficients of certain algorithms are not uniquely determined (Martínez-Santos et al, 2021).…”
Section: Supervised Classification Routinementioning
confidence: 99%
“…While useful, these are of limited value in cases where the input dataset consists solely of unambiguous examples. Furthermore, there are question marks as to whether these metrics are truly representative for the development of spatially-distributed estimates (Martínez-Santos et al, 2021). In those instances, using ad hoc calibration elements, such as complementary field information, can contribute to a better interpretation of the outcomes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With the help of ML technology, Islam et al [42] found that higher resolutions of image and elevation detail could have generated more accurate data for environmental risk assessment. Martinez-Santos et al [43] used Random Forest (RF) and Super Vector Machines (SVM) to predict and classify the presence of water bodies. Whilst the algorithm performed well over flat areas, the authors reported some imprecisions over ridges due to the absence of accurate DEMs [43].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Martinez-Santos et al [43] used Random Forest (RF) and Super Vector Machines (SVM) to predict and classify the presence of water bodies. Whilst the algorithm performed well over flat areas, the authors reported some imprecisions over ridges due to the absence of accurate DEMs [43].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%