2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.pce.2022.103198
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of performance measures of three machine learning algorithms for flood susceptibility mapping of river Silabati (tropical river, India)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
11
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 74 publications
1
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The approach of Khalaf et al [ 57 ] was third with 85.9% accuracy. The remaining approaches [ 26 , 41 , 44 ] all had an 85% accuracy.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The approach of Khalaf et al [ 57 ] was third with 85.9% accuracy. The remaining approaches [ 26 , 41 , 44 ] all had an 85% accuracy.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their solution is based on a combination of a quantum-inspired co-evolutionary algorithm, along with random rotation direction, and a Hamming adaptive rotation angle. As for river flood monitoring, Hasanuzzaman et al [ 41 ] compared the performance of three Machine Learning (ML) algorithms for flood susceptibility mapping. Their dataset consisted of 500 historical flood points with twelve influencing factors (elevation, rainfall, slope, etc.).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The study area is one of the regions with the highest rainfall in Vietnam. Heavy rains in the mountains cause a great flood to the coastal plain along with landslides (Hasanuzzaman et al, 2022; Lin et al, 2022). In the study area, precipitation in 2021 ranged from 1578 to 2731 mm.…”
Section: Methods and Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the random forest model can handle high dimensional data without feature selection and can identify more critical factors. Hasanuzzaman et al analyzed drivers of floods using three models, namely extreme gradient boosting, naive bayes, and random forest, and ascertained the superiority of the random forest model [27]. Zhang et al estimated aboveground carbon storage of woody vegetation by the random forest model and verified that it performs well [28].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%