National Taiwan Ocean University Institutional Repository:Item 987654321/40145
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 27308/39152
Visitors : 2447752      Online Users : 41
RC Version 4.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Adv. Search

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

Title: Comparing lazy and eager learning models for water level forecasting in river-reservoir basins of inundation regions
Authors: Chih-Chiang Wei
Contributors: 國立臺灣海洋大學:海洋環境資訊學系
Keywords: Basin
Eager learning
Lazy learning
Water level
Date: 2015-01
Issue Date: 2017-01-16T01:43:03Z
Publisher: Environmental Modelling & Software
Abstract: Abstract
This study developed a methodology for formulating water level models to forecast river stages during typhoons, comparing various models by using lazy and eager learning approaches. Two lazy learning models were introduced: the locally weighted regression (LWR) and the k-nearest neighbor (kNN) models. Their efficacy was compared with that of three eager learning models, namely, the artificial neural network (ANN), support vector regression (SVR), and linear regression (REG). These models were employed to analyze the Tanshui River Basin in Taiwan. The data collected comprised 50 historical typhoon events and relevant hourly hydrological data from the river basin during 1996–2007. The forecasting horizon ranged from 1 h to 4 h. Various statistical measures were calculated, including the correlation coefficient, mean absolute error, and root mean square error. Moreover, significance, computation efficiency, and Akaike information criterion were evaluated. The results indicated that (a) among the eager learning models, ANN and SVR yielded more favorable results than REG (based on statistical analyses and significance tests). Although ANN, SVR, and REG were categorized as eager learning models, their predictive abilities varied according to various global learning optimizers. (b) Regarding the lazy learning models, LWR performed more favorably than kNN. Although LWR and kNN were categorized as lazy learning models, their predictive abilities were based on diverse local learning optimizers. (c) A comparison of eager and lazy learning models indicated that neither were effective or yielded favorable results, because the distinct approximators of models that can be categorized as either eager or lazy learning models caused the performance to be dependent on individual models.
Relation: 63
Appears in Collections:[Department of Marine Environmental Informatics] Periodical Articles

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat

All items in NTOUR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


著作權政策宣告: 本網站之內容為國立臺灣海洋大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,請合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。
網站維護: 海大圖資處 圖書系統組
DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback