Using of Artificial Neural Networks for Evaluation Soil Water Content with Time Domain Reflectometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) has become an established method for soil volumetric water content ( ) measurement. TDR exploits the difference in dielectric constant values between the solid phase, air phase and liquid phase. In this paper, we study and evaluate the ability of empirical models to fit TDR calibration data for the soils of different textures, and adopt artificial neural network (ANN) to predict the Ka– relationship using soil physical parameters for ten different heavy texture soil types. The explanatory parameters that gave the most significant reduction in the root mean square error (RMSE) were dielectric constant, bulk density, clay content, silt content, sand content and organic matter content. The Ka– relationship for each soil type was predicted using the other nine soils for calibration purposes. To find the optimum model, various multilayer perceptron (MLP) topologies, having one hidden layer of neurons were investigated. In this analysis, Ka, bulk density and clay content were selected as input to ANN. The (3-10-1)-MLP, namely a network having 10 neurons in its hidden layer resulted in the best-suited model estimating the soil water content of the heavy texture soils at all soil types. For this topology, R2 and RMSE values were 0.998 and 0.00433, respectively. A comparative study among ANN models and various empirical models was also carried out. ANN models with RMSE and R2 of 0.0043-0.0134 (m3 m-3) and 0.923-0.998, respectively, gave better predictions than empirical models. The ANN model performed superior than both empirical and physical models. Since (3-10-1)-MLP outperformed regression models and it uses only one set of weights and biases for all soil types, it should be preferred over empirical and physical models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".