Cargando…
Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Hazardous Gas Dispersion Prediction in Field Cases
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6069387/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29996467 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071450 |
_version_ | 1783343485093412864 |
---|---|
author | Wang, Rongxiao Chen, Bin Qiu, Sihang Zhu, Zhengqiu Wang, Yiduo Wang, Yiping Qiu, Xiaogang |
author_facet | Wang, Rongxiao Chen, Bin Qiu, Sihang Zhu, Zhengqiu Wang, Yiduo Wang, Yiping Qiu, Xiaogang |
author_sort | Wang, Rongxiao |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6069387 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60693872018-08-07 Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Hazardous Gas Dispersion Prediction in Field Cases Wang, Rongxiao Chen, Bin Qiu, Sihang Zhu, Zhengqiu Wang, Yiduo Wang, Yiping Qiu, Xiaogang Int J Environ Res Public Health Article 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. MDPI 2018-07-10 2018-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6069387/ /pubmed/29996467 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071450 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Wang, Rongxiao Chen, Bin Qiu, Sihang Zhu, Zhengqiu Wang, Yiduo Wang, Yiping Qiu, Xiaogang Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Hazardous Gas Dispersion Prediction in Field Cases |
title | Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Hazardous Gas Dispersion Prediction in Field Cases |
title_full | Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Hazardous Gas Dispersion Prediction in Field Cases |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Hazardous Gas Dispersion Prediction in Field Cases |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Hazardous Gas Dispersion Prediction in Field Cases |
title_short | Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Hazardous Gas Dispersion Prediction in Field Cases |
title_sort | comparison of machine learning models for hazardous gas dispersion prediction in field cases |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6069387/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29996467 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071450 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wangrongxiao comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforhazardousgasdispersionpredictioninfieldcases AT chenbin comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforhazardousgasdispersionpredictioninfieldcases AT qiusihang comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforhazardousgasdispersionpredictioninfieldcases AT zhuzhengqiu comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforhazardousgasdispersionpredictioninfieldcases AT wangyiduo comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforhazardousgasdispersionpredictioninfieldcases AT wangyiping comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforhazardousgasdispersionpredictioninfieldcases AT qiuxiaogang comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforhazardousgasdispersionpredictioninfieldcases |