Selecting appropriate machine learning methods for digital soil mapping

dc.contributor.author Khaledian, Yones
dc.contributor.author Miller, Bradley
dc.contributor.department Department of Agronomy
dc.date 2020-01-02T19:08:43.000
dc.date.accessioned 2020-06-29T23:06:37Z
dc.date.available 2020-06-29T23:06:37Z
dc.date.copyright Tue Jan 01 00:00:00 UTC 2019
dc.date.embargo 2020-12-20
dc.date.issued 2019-12-20
dc.description.abstract <p>Digital soil mapping (DSM) increasingly makes use of machine learning algorithms to identify relationships between soil properties and multiple covariates that can be detected across landscapes. Selecting the appropriate algorithm for model building is critical for optimizing results in the context of the available data. Over the past decade, many studies have tested different machine learning (ML) approaches on a variety of soil data sets. Here, we review the application of some of the most popular ML algorithms for digital soil mapping. Specifically, we compare the strengths and weaknesses of multiple linear regression (MLR), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), support vector regression (SVR), Cubist, random forest (RF), and artificial neural networks (ANN) for DSM. These algorithms were compared on the basis of five factors: 1) quantity of hyperparameters, 2) sample size, 3) covariate selection, 4) learning time, and 5) interpretability of the resulting model. If training time is a limitation, then algorithms that have fewer model parameters and hyperparameters should be considered, e.g., MLR, KNN, SVR, and Cubist. If the data set is large (thousands of samples) and computation time is not an issue, ANN would likely produce the best results. If the data set is small (<100), then Cubist, KNN, RF, and SVR are likely to perform better than ANN and MLR. The uncertainty in predictions produced by Cubist, KNN, RF, and SVR may not decrease with large datasets. When interpretability of the resulting model is important to the user, Cubist, MLR, and RF are more appropriate algorithms as they do not function as “black boxes.” There is no one correct approach to produce models for predicting the spatial distribution of soil properties. Nonetheless, some algorithms are more appropriate than others considering the nature of the data and purpose of mapping activity.</p>
dc.description.comments <p>This is a manuscript of an article published as Yones Khaledian , Bradley A. Miller , Selecting appropriate machine learning methods for digital soil mapping, Applied Mathematical Modelling (2019), doi: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2019.12.016" target="_blank" title="Persistent link using digital object identifier">10.1016/j.apm.2019.12.016</a>. Posted with permission.</p>
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.identifier archive/lib.dr.iastate.edu/agron_pubs/618/
dc.identifier.articleid 1668
dc.identifier.contextkey 16100724
dc.identifier.s3bucket isulib-bepress-aws-west
dc.identifier.submissionpath agron_pubs/618
dc.identifier.uri https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/handle/20.500.12876/4989
dc.language.iso en
dc.source.bitstream archive/lib.dr.iastate.edu/agron_pubs/618/2019_Miller_SelectingAppropriateManuscript.pdf|||Sat Jan 15 01:17:29 UTC 2022
dc.source.uri 10.1016/j.apm.2019.12.016
dc.subject.disciplines Applied Mathematics
dc.subject.disciplines Soil Science
dc.subject.disciplines Spatial Science
dc.subject.disciplines Theory and Algorithms
dc.title Selecting appropriate machine learning methods for digital soil mapping
dc.type article
dc.type.genre article
dspace.entity.type Publication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication fc9d36c4-c402-47ef-9d53-4138ada74123
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication fdd5c06c-bdbe-469c-a38e-51e664fece7a
File
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
2019_Miller_SelectingAppropriateManuscript.pdf
Size:
1.09 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Collections