4.5 Article

Estimating FAO Blaney-Criddle b-Factor Using Soft Computing Models

期刊

ATMOSPHERE
卷 13, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/atmos13101536

关键词

Blaney-Criddle b-Factor; machine learning; M5 model tree; random forest; random tree; reference crop evapotranspiration; support vector regression

资金

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research at Najran University [NU/RC/SERC/11/3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study adopted five soft computing methods to estimate the b-factor in FAO Blaney-Criddle and compared their performances. SVR-rbf method had the highest performance among the five methods.
FAO Blaney-Criddle has been generally an accepted method for estimating reference crop evapotranspiration. In this regard, it is inevitable to estimate the b-factor provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations Irrigation and Drainage Paper number 24. In this study, five soft computing methods, namely random forest (RF), M5 model tree (M5), support vector regression with the polynomial function (SVR-poly), support vector regression with radial basis function kernel (SVR-rbf), and random tree (RT), were adapted to estimate the b-factor. And Their performances were also compared. The suitable hyper-parameters for each soft computing method were investigated. Five statistical indices were deployed to evaluate their performance, i.e., the coefficient of determination (r(2)), the mean absolute relative error (MARE), the maximum absolute relative error (MXARE), the standard deviation of the absolute relative error (DEV), and the number of samples with an error greater than 2% (NE > 2%). Findings reveal that SVR-rbf gave the highest performance among five soft computing models, followed by the M5, RF, SVR-poly, and RT. The M5 also derived a new explicit equation for b estimation. SVR-rbf provided a bit lower efficacy than the radial basis function network but outperformed the regression equations. Models' Applicability for estimating monthly reference evapotranspiration (ETo) was demonstrated.

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

4.5
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