4.7 Article

Modify the Accuracy of MODIS PWV in China: A Performance Comparison Using Random Forest, Generalized Regression Neural Network and Back-Propagation Neural Network

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 13, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs13112215

关键词

MODIS PWV; back-propagation neural network; random forest; generalized regression neural network

资金

  1. National key research and development program of China [2018YFC1506606]
  2. Key project of basic scientific research operating expenses of Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences [2019Z003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, three machine learning methods were used to calibrate MODIS PWV in 2019, at annual and monthly timescales. The results show that the RF method performs best at the annual timescale, while the GRNN method performs best at the monthly timescale. The spatial and temporal variation patterns of the RMS values are significantly weakened after the modeling by machine learning methods.
Water vapor plays an important role in climate change and water cycling, but there are few water vapor products with both high spatial resolution and high accuracy that effectively monitor the change of water vapor. The high precision Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Precipitable Water Vapor (PWV) is often used to calibrate the high spatial resolution Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) PWV to produce new PWV product with high accuracy and high spatial resolution. In addition, the machine learning method has a good performance in modifying the accuracy of MODIS PWV. However, the accuracy improvement of different machine learning methods and different modeling timescale is different. In this article, we use three machine learning methods, namely, the Random Forest (RF), Generalized Regression Neural Network (GRNN), and Back-propagation Neural Network (BPNN) to calibrate MODIS PWV in 2019, at annual and monthly timescales. We also use the Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) method for comparison. The root mean squares (RMSs) at the annual timescale with the three machine learning methods are 4.1 mm (BPNN), 3.3 mm (RF), and 3.9 mm (GRNN), and the average RMSs become 2.9 mm (BPNN), 2.8 mm (RF), and 2.5 mm (GRNN) at the monthly timescale. Those results are all better than the MLR method (5.0 mm at the annual timescale and 4.6 mm at the monthly timescale). When there is an obvious variation pattern in the training sample, the RF method can capture the pattern to achieve the best results since the RF achieves the best performance at the annual timescale. Dividing such samples into several sub-samples each having higher internal consistency could further improve the performance of machine learning methods, especially for the GRNN, since GRNN achieves the best performance at the monthly timescale, and the performance of those three machine learning methods at the monthly timescale is better than that of annual timescale. The spatial and temporal variation patterns of the RMS values are significantly weakened after the modeling by machine learning methods for both three methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据