Author
Listed:
- Rongxiao Wang
(College of System Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, 109 Deya Road, Changsha 410073, China)
- Bin Chen
(College of System Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, 109 Deya Road, Changsha 410073, China)
- Sihang Qiu
(College of System Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, 109 Deya Road, Changsha 410073, China
Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, Delft University of Technology, Building 28, Van Mourik Broekmanweg 6, 2628 XE Delft, The Netherlands)
- Zhengqiu Zhu
(College of System Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, 109 Deya Road, Changsha 410073, China)
- Yiduo Wang
(College of System Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, 109 Deya Road, Changsha 410073, China)
- Yiping Wang
(The Naval 902 Factory, Shanghai 200083, China)
- Xiaogang Qiu
(College of System Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, 109 Deya Road, Changsha 410073, China)
Abstract
Dispersion prediction plays a significant role in the management and emergency response to hazardous gas emissions and accidental leaks. Compared with conventional atmospheric dispersion models, machine leaning (ML) models have both high accuracy and efficiency in terms of prediction, especially in field cases. However, selection of model type and the inputs of the ML model are still essential problems. To address this issue, two ML models (i.e., the back propagation (BP) network and support vector regression (SVR) with different input selections (i.e., original monitoring parameters and integrated Gaussian parameters) are proposed in this paper. To compare the performances of presented ML models in field cases, these models are evaluated using the Prairie Grass and Indianapolis field data sets. The influence of the training set scale on the performances of ML models is analyzed as well. Results demonstrate that the integrated Gaussian parameters indeed improve the prediction accuracy in the Prairie Grass case. However, they do not make much difference in the Indianapolis case due to their inadaptability to the complex terrain conditions. In addition, it can be summarized that the SVR shows better generalization ability with relatively small training sets, but tends to under-fit the training data. In contrast, the BP network has a stronger fitting ability, but sometimes suffers from an over-fitting problem. As a result, the model and input selection presented in this paper will be of great help to environmental and public health protection in real applications.
Suggested Citation
Rongxiao Wang & Bin Chen & Sihang Qiu & Zhengqiu Zhu & Yiduo Wang & Yiping Wang & Xiaogang Qiu, 2018.
"Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Hazardous Gas Dispersion Prediction in Field Cases,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, July.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:7:p:1450-:d:157076
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:7:p:1450-:d:157076. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.