4.7 Article

Training enhanced reservoir computing predictor for landslide displacement

期刊

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
卷 188, 期 -, 页码 101-109

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.11.008

关键词

Landslide; Prediction; Reservoir computing; Recurrent neural network; Enhanced training

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [61203286, 61125303]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2011CB710606]
  3. Program for Science and Technology in Wuhan of China [2014010101010004]
  4. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University of China [IRT1245]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Landslide early warning systems can be implemented based on the monitoring and prediction of landslide displacements. The internal mechanisms of landslides are very complex, and precise mechanistic models of landslides are difficult to obtain; therefore, data-driven models are usually applied. From the perspective of dynamic system theory, landslide development should be considered a dynamic process. Because traditional models, such as feed-forward neural networks, can only express static relationships, the applicability of these static models is quite limited in landslide prediction tasks. In our study, recurrent neural networks are established and trained into dynamic predictors of landslide displacement using a training algorithm named reservoir computing. A shortcoming of the reservoir computing algorithm is that the models will not perform well with insufficiently large training sets. Because practical landslide displacement recordings are usually quite short, interpolation techniques are employed to enhance the training of the dynamic predictors. The method proposed in this paper is applied to predict the developments of three landslides in the Three Gorges area, and the predicted values are close to the actual measurements. Improvements relative to sophisticated static predictors and basic dynamic predictors are obvious. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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