Performance Evaluation of MLP and RBF Neural Networks to Estimate the Soil Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil saturated hydraulic conductivity is considered one of the physical soil properties that is very important in modeling of water movement and environmental studies. This study aimed to compare the performance of Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) and Radial Basis Function (RBF) in neural networks for estimation of the soil saturated hydraulic conductivity. For this, the data of 27 drilled cased borehole permeameter with three kinds of geometry water flow through the soils and the soil texture properties were used as the input parameters for models. The effectiveness of neural networks to estimate the soil saturated hydraulic conductivity were calculated and compared based on mean squared error (MSE), root mean squared error (RMSE) and coefficient determination (R2). According to the above indicators, for all three types of drilled cased borehole permeameter surveyed in this study, the results show MLP neural networks had better performance than RBF neural networks in estimation of the soil saturated hydraulic conductivity and for wells with the horizontal, vertical and horizontal-vertical flow, which the amount of coefficient determination were respectively for all of them 0.94, 0.97 and 0.85.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".