4.2 Article

A comparative study of multiple linear regression, artificial neural network and support vector machine for the prediction of dissolved oxygen

期刊

HYDROLOGY RESEARCH
卷 48, 期 5, 页码 1214-1225

出版社

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/nh.2016.149

关键词

back propagation neural network; multiple linear regression; particle swarm optimization algorithm; support vector machine; water quality parameters

资金

  1. Chinese Academy for Environmental Planning
  2. Tianjin Normal University Doctor Foundation [52XB1517]
  3. innovation team training plan of the Tianjin Education Committee [TD12-5037]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41372373]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dissolved oxygen (DO) is an important indicator reflecting the healthy state of aquatic ecosystems. The balance between oxygen supply and consuming in the water body is significantly influenced by physical and chemical parameters. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of multiple linear regression (MLR), back propagation neural network (BPNN), and support vector machine (SVM) for the prediction of DO concentration based on multiple water quality parameters. The data set included 969 samples collected from rivers in China and the 16 predicted variables involved physical factors, nutrients, organic substances, and metal ions, which would affect the DO concentrations directly or indirectly by influencing the water-air exchange, the growth of water plants, and the lives of aquatic animals. The models optimized by particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm were calibrated and tested, with nearly 80% and 20% data, respectively. The results showed that the PSO-BPNN and PSO-SVM had better predicted performances than linear regression methods. All of the evaluated criteria, including coefficient of determination, mean squared error, and absolute relative errors suggested that the PSO-SVM model was superior to the MLR and PSO-BPNN for DO prediction in the rivers of China with limited knowledge of other information.

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

4.2
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