ScienceDirect® Home Skip Main Navigation Links
You have guest access to ScienceDirect. Find out more.
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
 Quick Search
 Search tips (Opens new window)
    Clear all fields    
Neural Networks
Volume 19, Issue 2, March 2006, Pages 215-224
Earth Sciences and Environmental Applications of Computational Intelligence
 
Font Size: Decrease Font Size  Increase Font Size
 Abstract - selected
Article
Purchase PDF (299 K)

 
 
 
Related Articles in ScienceDirect
View More Related Articles
 
View Record in Scopus
 
doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2006.01.008    How to Cite or Link Using DOI (Opens New Window)
Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

2006 Special issue

Modular learning models in forecasting natural phenomena

D.P. SolomatineCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author and M.B. Siek

Hydroinformatics and Knowledge Management Department, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, P.O. Box 3015, 2601 DA Delft, The Netherlands

Available online 13 March 2006.

Purchase the full-text article



References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Abstract

Modular model is a particular type of committee machine and is comprised of a set of specialized (local) models each of which is responsible for a particular region of the input space, and may be trained on a subset of training set. Many algorithms for allocating such regions to local models typically do this in automatic fashion. In forecasting natural processes, however, domain experts want to bring in more knowledge into such allocation, and to have certain control over the choice of models. This paper presents a number of approaches to building modular models based on various types of splits of training set and combining the models’ outputs (hard splits, statistically and deterministically driven soft combinations of models, ‘fuzzy committees’, etc.). An issue of including a domain expert into the modeling process is also discussed, and new algorithms in the class of model trees (piece-wise linear modular regression models) are presented. Comparison of the algorithms based on modular local modeling to the more traditional ‘global’ learning models on a number of benchmark tests and river flow forecasting problems shows their higher accuracy and transparency of the resulting models.

Keywords: Local models; Modular models; Committees; Neural networks; Flood forecasting

Article Outline

1. Introduction
2. Splitting the training set and combining the outputs
2.1. Hard splitting
2.2. Hard splitting with soft combination of models (‘fuzzy committee’)
2.3. Instance-based learning: soft combination of local models
2.4. Statistically-driven soft splitting
3. Progressive hard splitting leading to hierarchies
3.1. Greedy splitting methods
3.2. Optimization of hierarchical splits: the M5opt algorithm
3.2.1. Tree representation
3.2.2. Exhaustive search
3.2.3. Randomized search
3.3. Additional features of M5opt
4. Incorporation of domain knowledge into machine learning algorithms
5. Experiments
5.1. Global modeling
5.2. Local modelling
5.2.1. M5opt model trees
5.3. Knowledge-driven local modelling involving a domain expert
5.3.1. M5flex model trees
5.3.2. Expert splits followed by global and local modeling
6. Results and discussion
7. Conclusion
References






Neural Networks
Volume 19, Issue 2, March 2006, Pages 215-224
Earth Sciences and Environmental Applications of Computational Intelligence
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
Elsevier.com (Opens new window)
About ScienceDirect  |  Contact Us  |  Information for Advertisers  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.