IGARSS 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium 2019
DOI: 10.1109/igarss.2019.8899794
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Applying a machine learning method to obtain long time and spatio-temporal continuous soil moisture over the Tibetan Plateau

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Estimated SM based on the TVDI method can only explain < 71% of the variation in observed SM on Tibetan Plateau (Yang et al, 2017). Estimated SM based on the constructed artificial neural network model only explained ≤ 80% of the variation in observed SM on Tibetan Plateau (Cui et al, 2016;Cui et al, 2019), and only explained about 37% of the variation in observed SM in the Xiliaohe River Basin (Guo et al, 2022). Estimated SM based on the random forest models can only explain < 65% of the variation in observed SM at the global scale (Lei et al, 2022).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Estimated SM based on the TVDI method can only explain < 71% of the variation in observed SM on Tibetan Plateau (Yang et al, 2017). Estimated SM based on the constructed artificial neural network model only explained ≤ 80% of the variation in observed SM on Tibetan Plateau (Cui et al, 2016;Cui et al, 2019), and only explained about 37% of the variation in observed SM in the Xiliaohe River Basin (Guo et al, 2022). Estimated SM based on the random forest models can only explain < 65% of the variation in observed SM at the global scale (Lei et al, 2022).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The spatio-temporal resolution of SM products is fixed and generally coarse, but the spatio-temporal resolutions of SM in the machine learning algorithms can be set according to actual needs. Some studies have tried to quantify SM using various machine learning tools (e.g., random forest, extreme gradient boosting) (Cui et al, 2016;Yang et al, 2017;Cui et al, 2019;Tong et al, 2021;Guo et al, 2022;Jarray et al, 2022;Lei et al, 2022;Uthayakumar et al, 2022;Veloso et al, 2022;Wei et al, 2022). Although several previous studies confirmed that different machine learning tools can have varying performances in quantifying surface variables (Han et al, 2022b;He et al, 2022;Tian and Fu, 2022), it is still unclear which has the best performance in estimating SM (Tong et al, 2021;Zhang et al, 2022a;Nguyen et al, 2022).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results showed that GSTARIMA-X exhibited a small error value, highlighting the significant influence of the Moving Average on the modeling. Furthermore, Cui et al (2019) [87] applied a spatio-temporal hybrid model with ML to forecast soil moisture for detecting the growing season on the Tibetan plateau, achieving a satisfactory R 2 value. Traditional models such as STAR, GSTAR, and GSTARIMA, developed from scratch, also played a promising role in modeling location and time dependencies with stationary and nonstationary data.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The DNN process, whether using an MLP or a CNN, played a crucial role in minimizing residual values. In general, traditional spatio-temporal prediction models [8,11,89,90] or hybrids with NNs tended to use variables from a limited number of locations, or NN modeling employed a single layer [78,87,88].…”
Section: Gaps In the Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%