论文标题

比较用于预测中国北部喀斯特弹簧排放的机器学习方法

Comparison of Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Karst Spring Discharge in North China

论文作者

Cheng, Shu, Qiao, Xiaojuan, Shi, Yaolin, Wang, Dawei

论文摘要

喀斯特弹簧放电的定量分析通常取决于基于物理的模型,这些模型本质上是不确定的。 To improve the understanding of the mechanism of spring discharge fluctuation and the relationship between precipitation and spring discharge, three machine learning methods were developed to reduce the predictive errors of physical-based groundwater models, simulate the discharge of Longzici Spring's karst area, and predict changes in the spring on the basis of long time series precipitation monitoring and spring water flow data from 1987 to 2018. The three machine learning methods included two artificial neural networks (ANNs), namely, multilayer感知器(MLP)和长期短期存储器转换神经网络(LSTM-RNN)以及支持向量回归(SVR)。引入了一种归一化方法,用于数据预处理,以使三种方法鲁棒和计算有效。为了比较和评估三种机器学习方法的能力,选择了平均平方误差(MSE),平均绝对误差(MAE)和根平方误差(RMSE)作为这些方法的性能指标。模拟表明,MLP分别将MSE,MAE和RMSE降低到0.0010、0.0254和0.0318。同时,LSTM-RNN将MSE降低到0.0010,MAE至0.0272,RMSE降低至0.0329。此外,对于SVR,MSE,MAE和RMSE的减少分别为0.0910、0.1852和0.3017。结果表明,MLP的表现略高于LSTM-RNN,MLP和LSTM-RNN的表现要比SVR好得多。此外,ANN被证明是用于模拟和预测喀斯特弹簧放电的先前机器学习方法。

The quantitative analyses of karst spring discharge typically rely on physical-based models, which are inherently uncertain. To improve the understanding of the mechanism of spring discharge fluctuation and the relationship between precipitation and spring discharge, three machine learning methods were developed to reduce the predictive errors of physical-based groundwater models, simulate the discharge of Longzici Spring's karst area, and predict changes in the spring on the basis of long time series precipitation monitoring and spring water flow data from 1987 to 2018. The three machine learning methods included two artificial neural networks (ANNs), namely, multilayer perceptron (MLP) and long short-term memory-recurrent neural network (LSTM-RNN), and support vector regression (SVR). A normalization method was introduced for data preprocessing to make the three methods robust and computationally efficient. To compare and evaluate the capability of the three machine learning methods, the mean squared error (MSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and root-mean-square error (RMSE) were selected as the performance metrics for these methods. Simulations showed that MLP reduced MSE, MAE, and RMSE to 0.0010, 0.0254, and 0.0318, respectively. Meanwhile, LSTM-RNN reduced MSE to 0.0010, MAE to 0.0272, and RMSE to 0.0329. Moreover, the decrease in MSE, MAE, and RMSE were 0.0910, 0.1852, and 0.3017, respectively, for SVR. Results indicated that MLP performed slightly better than LSTM-RNN, and MLP and LSTM-RNN performed considerably better than SVR. Furthermore, ANNs were demonstrated to be prior machine learning methods for simulating and predicting karst spring discharge.

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源