4.7 Article

Input determination for neural network models in water resources applications. Part 1 - background and methodology

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
卷 301, 期 1-4, 页码 75-92

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.06.021

关键词

artificial neural networks; input determination; self-organizing map; genetic algorithm; mutual information; general regression neural network

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of artificial neural network (ANN) models in water resources applications has grown considerably over the last decade. However, an important step in the ANN modelling methodology that has received little attention is the selection of appropriate model inputs. This article is the first in a two-part series published in this issue and addresses the lack of a suitable input determintion methodology for ANN models in water resources applications. The current state of input determination is reviewed and two input determination methodologies are presented. The first method is a model-free approach, which utilises a measure of the mutual information criterion to characterise the dependence between a potential model input and the output variable. To facilitate the calculation of dependence in the case of multiple inputs, a partial measure of the mutual information criterion is us In the second method, a self-organizing map (SOM) is used to reduce the dimensionality of the input space and obtain independent inputs. To determine which inputs have a significant relationship with the output (dependent) variable. a hybrid genetic algorithm and general regression neural network (GAGRNN) is used. Both input determination techniques are tested on a number of synthetic data sets. where the dependence attributes were known a priori. In the second paper of the series, the input determination methodology is applied to a real-world case study in order to determine suitable model inputs for forecasting salinity in the River Murray, South Australia, 14 days in advance. (C) 2004 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