Advertisement

Design and implementation of a hybrid MLP-GSA model with multi-layer perceptron-gravitational search algorithm for monthly lake water level forecasting

  • Mohammad Ali GhorbaniEmail author
  • Ravinesh C. DeoEmail author
  • Vahid Karimi
  • Mahsa H. Kashani
  • Shahryar Ghorbani
Original Paper
  • 101 Downloads

Abstract

Lakes are primitive water holding geographic structures containing most the fresh water on the Earth’s surface, but the recent trends show that climate change can potentially lead to a significant aberration in the Lake water level and its overall pristine state, and therefore, could also threaten the source of freshwater. The ability to forecast the lake water is a paramount decision-making and risk-reduction task, and this is required to retain the sustainability of the natural environment, and to reduce the risk to the local and global food chain, recreation activities, agriculture and ecosystems. In this study, we have designed and evaluated a new hybrid forecasting model, integrating the gravitational search algorithm (GSA), as a heuristic optimization tool, with the Multilayer Perceptron (MLP-GSA) algorithm to forecast water level in Winnipesaukee and Cypress Lakes in the United States of America. The performance of the resulting hybrid MLP-GSA model is benchmarked and compared with the traditional MLP trained with Levenberg–Marquadt back propagation learning algorithm, two other intelligent hybrid models (MLP-PSO and MLP-FFA) and also two stochastic models namely, ARMA and ARIMA models. In this case study, the monthly time scale water level data from 1938 to 2005 and 1942 to 2011 for the Lakes Winnipesaukee and Cypress, respectively, were applied to train and evaluate the MLP-GSA model. The best input combinations of the standalone (MLP) and the hybrid MLP-GSA forecasting models were determined by sensitivity analysis of historical water level training data for 1-month lead forecasting. The hybrid MLP-GSA model was evaluated independently with statistical score metrics: coefficient of correlation, coefficient of efficiency, the root mean square and relative root mean square errors, and the Bayesian Information Criterion. The results showed that the hybrid MLP–GSA4 and MLP-GSA5 model (where the ‘4 and 5 months’ of lagged input combinations of Lake water level data were utilized as the model inputs) performed more accurately than the ARIMA, ARMA, MLP4, MLP-PSO4 and MLP-FFA4 models for the Cypress Lake and ARIMA, ARMA, MLP5, MLP-PSO5 and MLP-FFA5 models for the Winnipesaukee lake, respectively. This study ascertained the robustness of hybrid MLP-GSA over ARMA, ARIMA, MLP, MLP-PSO and MLP-FFA for the forecasting of Lake water level. The high efficacy of the hybrid MLP-GSA model over the other applied models, indicate significant implications of its use in water resources management, decision-making tasks, irrigation management, management of hydrologic structures and sustainable use of water for agriculture and other necessities.

Keywords

MLP Gravitational search algorithm Hybrid models ARMA ARIMA Lake Winnipesaukee Lake Cypress Water level 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely thank the Editor-In-Chief, the Associate Editor, and all the reviewers for their useful and gracious comments, which improved the clarity of the final manuscript.

References

  1. Adamowski J, Fung Chan H, Prasher SO, Ozga-Zielinski B, Sliusarieva A (2012) Comparison of multiple linear and nonlinear regression, autoregressive integrated moving average, artificial neural network, and wavelet artificial neural network methods for urban water demand forecasting in Montreal, Canada. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010wr009945 Google Scholar
  2. Aertsen W, Kint V, Orshoven J, Özkan K, Muys B (2010) Comparison and ranking of different modelling techniques for prediction of site index in Mediterranean mountain forests. Ecol Model 221(8):1119–1130Google Scholar
  3. Afan HA et al (2015) ANN based sediment prediction model utilizing different input scenarios. Water Resour Manag 29:1231–1245Google Scholar
  4. Altunkaynak A, Şen Z (2007) Fuzzy logic model of lake water level fluctuations in Lake Van, Turkey. Theor Appl Climatol 90:227–233Google Scholar
  5. Arbain S, Wibowo A (2012) Time series methods for water level forecasting of Dungun River in Terengganu Malaysia. Int J Eng Sci Technol 4(4):1803–1811Google Scholar
  6. Barzegar R, Moghaddam AA, Baghban H (2016) A supervised committee machine artificial intelligent for improving DRASTIC method to assess groundwater contamination risk: a case study from Tabriz plain aquifer, Iran. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 30(3):883–899.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1088-3 Google Scholar
  7. Behrang M, Assareh E, Ghalambaz M, Assari MR, Noghrehabadi AR (2011) Forecasting future oil demand in Iran using GSA (Gravitational Search Algorithm). Energy 36(9):5649–5654Google Scholar
  8. Buyukyildiz M, Tezel G, Yilmaz V (2014) Estimation of the change in lake water level by artificial intelligence methods. Water Resour Manag 28:4747–4763Google Scholar
  9. Chai T, Draxler RR (2014) Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)–arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geosci Model Dev 7:1247–1250Google Scholar
  10. Chanut JP, D’astous D, El-Sabh MI (1988) Modelling the natural and anthropogenic variations of the St. Lawrence water level. In: El-Sabh MI, Murty TS (eds) Natural and man-made hazards. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. Chiew FH, Piechota TC, Dracup JA, McMahon TA (1998) El nino/southern oscillation and Australian rainfall, streamflow and drought: links and potential for forecasting. J Hydrol 204:138–149Google Scholar
  12. Çimen M, Kisi O (2009) Comparison of two different data-driven techniques in modeling lake level fluctuations in Turkey. J Hydrol 378:253–262Google Scholar
  13. Clerc M, Kennedy J (2002) The particle swarm-explosion, stability, and convergence in a multidimensional complex space. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(1):58–73Google Scholar
  14. Deo RC, Şahin M (2015a) Application of the artificial neural network model for prediction of monthly standardized precipitation and evapotranspiration index using hydrometeorological parameters and climate indices in eastern Australia. Atmos Res 161–162:65–81Google Scholar
  15. Deo RC, Şahin M (2015b) Application of the extreme learning machine algorithm for the prediction of monthly effective drought index in eastern Australia. Atmos Res 153:512–525Google Scholar
  16. Deo RC, Şahin M (2016) An extreme learning machine model for the simulation of monthly mean streamflow water level in eastern Queensland. Environ Monit Assess.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5094-9 Google Scholar
  17. Deo RC, Kisi O, Singh VP (2017a) Drought forecasting in eastern Australia using multivariate adaptive regression spline, least square support vector machine and M5Tree model. Atmos Res 184:149–175Google Scholar
  18. Deo RC et al (2017b) Multi-layer perceptron hybrid model integrated with the firefly optimizer algorithm for windspeed prediction of target site using a limited set of neighboring reference station data. Renew Energy.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.09.078 Google Scholar
  19. Deo RC, Tiwari MK, Adamowski JF, Quilty MJ (2017c) Forecasting effective drought index using a wavelet extreme learning machine (W-ELM) model. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31(5):1211–1240Google Scholar
  20. Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1979) Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc 74:423–431Google Scholar
  21. Domenico MD, Ghorbani MA, Makarynskyy O, Makarynska D, Asadi H (2013) Chaos and reproduction in sea level. Appl Math Model 37:3687–3697Google Scholar
  22. Fahimi F, Yaseen ZM, El-shafie A (2017) Application of soft computing based hybrid models in hydrological variables modeling: a comprehensive review. Theor Appl Climatol 128:875–903Google Scholar
  23. Galavi H, Mirzaei M, Teang Shul L, Valizadeh N (2013) Klang River-level forecasting using ARIMA and ANFIS models. Am Water Works Assoc.  https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2013.105.0106 Google Scholar
  24. Ghalambaz M, Noghrehabadi AR, Behrang MA, Assareh E, Ghanbarzadeh A, Hedayat N (2011) A hybrid neural network and gravitational search algorithm (HNNGSA) method to solve well known Wessinger’s equation. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 73:803–807Google Scholar
  25. Ghorbani F, Nezamabadi-pour H (2012) On the Convergence analysis of gravitational search algorithm. J Adv Comput Res 3(2):45–51Google Scholar
  26. Ghorbani MA, Zadeh HA, Isazadeh M, Terzi O (2016) A comparative study of artificial neural network (MLP, RBF) and support vector machine models for river flow prediction. Environ Earth Sci 75:476.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-5096-x Google Scholar
  27. Ghorbani MA, Deo RC, Yaseen ZM, Kashani MH, Mohammadi B (2017a) Pan evaporation prediction using a hybrid multilayer perceptron-firefly algorithm (MLP-FFA) model: case study in North Iran. Theor Appl Climatol 133(3–4):1119–1131Google Scholar
  28. Ghorbani MA, Deo RC, Karimi V, Yaseen ZM, Terzi O (2017b) Implementation of a hybrid MLP-FFA model for water level prediction of Lake Egirdir, Turkey. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-017-1474-0 Google Scholar
  29. Hamilton JD (1994) Time series analysis. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  30. Hatamlou A, Abdullah S, Othman Z (2011) Gravitational search algorithm with heuristic search for clustering problems. In: 2011 3rd conference on data mining and optimization, pp. 28–29Google Scholar
  31. Hipni A et al (2013) Daily forecasting of dam water levels: comparing a support vector machine (SVM) model with adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). Water Resour Manag 27:3803–3823Google Scholar
  32. Jamieson PD, Porter JR, Wilson DR (1991) A test of the computer simulation model ARCWHEAT1 on wheat crops grown in New Zealand. Field Crops Res 27:337–350Google Scholar
  33. Jha P, Biswal BB, Sahu OP (2015) Inverse kinematic solution of robot manipulator using hybrid neural network. Int J Mater Sci Eng 3(1):31–38.  https://doi.org/10.12720/ijmse.3.1.31-38 Google Scholar
  34. Kakahaji H, Banadaki HD, Kakahaji A, Kakahaji A (2013) Prediction of Urmia Lake water-level fluctuations by using analytical, linear statistic and intelligent methods. Water Resour Manag 27:4469–4492Google Scholar
  35. Kayarvizhy N, Kanmani S, Uthariaraj RV (2014) ANN models optimized using swarm intelligence algorithms. WSEAS Trans Comput 13:501–519Google Scholar
  36. Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on neural networks, vol 4, pp. 1942–1948Google Scholar
  37. Khatibi R et al (2014) Inter-comparison of time series models of lake levels predicted by several modeling strategies. J Hydrol 511:530–545Google Scholar
  38. Kişi Ö (2009a) Daily pan evaporation modelling using multi-layer perceptrons and radial basis neural networks. Hydrol Process 23:213–223Google Scholar
  39. Kişi Ö (2009b) Neural network and wavelet conjunction model for modelling monthly level fluctuations in Turkey. Hydrol Process 23:2081–2092Google Scholar
  40. Li C, Zhou J (2011) Parameters identification of hydraulic turbine governing system using improved gravitational search algorithm. Energy Convers Manag 52(1):374–381Google Scholar
  41. Long NC, Meesad P (2013) Meta-heuristic algorithms applied to the optimization of type-1 and type 2 TSK fuzzy logic systems for sea water level prediction. In: IEEE sixth international workshop on computational intelligence and applications (IWCIA), IEEE, pp 69–74Google Scholar
  42. Lukasik S, Zak S (2009) Firefly algorithm for continuous constrained optimization tasks. Firefly algorithm contin Constrained Optim. Tasks 5796:97–106.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04441-0_8 Google Scholar
  43. McClelland JL, Rumelhart DE (1989) Explorations in parallel distributed processing: a handbook of models, programs, and exercises. MIT press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Mirjalili SA, Hashim SZM, Sardroudi HM (2012) Training feedforward neural networks using hybrid particle swarm optimization and gravitational search algorithm. Appl Math Comput 218:11125–11137Google Scholar
  45. Mishra AK, Singh VP (2011) Drought modeling—a review. J Hydrol 403:157–175Google Scholar
  46. Mondal S, Bhattacharya A, nee Dey SH (2013) Multi-objective economic emission load dispatch solution using gravitational search algorithm and considering wind power penetration. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 44(1):282–292Google Scholar
  47. Nash J, Sutcliffe J (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290Google Scholar
  48. Ojugo AA, Emudianughe J, Yoro RE, Okonta EO, Eboka AO (2013) A hybrid artificial neural network gravitational search algorithm for rainfall runoff modeling and simulation in hydrology. Prog Intell Comput Appl 2(1):22–33Google Scholar
  49. Prasad R, Deo RC, Li Y, Maraseni T (2017) Input selection and performance optimization of ANN-based streamflow forecasting in a drought-prone Murray Darling Basin with IIS and MODWT. Atmos Res 197:42–63Google Scholar
  50. Quilty J, Adamowski J, Khalil B, Rathinasamy M (2016) Bootstrap rank-ordered conditional mutual information (broCMI)—a nonlinear input variable selection method for water resources modeling. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2015wr016959 Google Scholar
  51. Raheli B, Aalami MT, El-Shafie A, Ghorbani MA, Deo RC (2017) Uncertainty assessment of the multilayer perceptron (MLP) neural network model with implementation of the novel hybrid MLP-FFA method for prediction of biochemical oxygen demand and dissolved oxygen: a case study of Langat River. Environ Earth Sci 76:503Google Scholar
  52. Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-pour H, Saryazdi S (2009) GSA: a gravitational search algorithm. Inf Sci 179(13):2232–2248Google Scholar
  53. Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-pour H, Saryazdi S (2011) Filter modeling using gravitational search algorithm. Eng Appl Artif Intell 24(1):117–122Google Scholar
  54. Sabri NM, Puteh M, Mahmood MR (2013) A REVIEW OF gravitational search algorithm. Int J Adv Soft Comput 5(3):1–39Google Scholar
  55. Said SE, Dickey D (1984) Testing for unit roots in autoregressive moving-average models with unknown order. Biometrika 71:599–607Google Scholar
  56. Sedki A, Ouazar D (2010) Hybrid particle swarm and neural network approach for streamflow forecasting. Math Model Nat Phenom 5:132–138Google Scholar
  57. Sharma A (2016) Metaheuristic approaches for adaptive array signal processing in smart antenna. Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy with major in Electronics and Communication Engineering and minor in Computer Science of the College of Post-Graduate Studies, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, PantnagarGoogle Scholar
  58. Singh A, Imtiyaz M, Isaac R, Denis D (2012) Comparison of soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) and multilayer perceptron (MLP) artificial neural network for predicting sediment yield in the Nagwa agricultural watershed in Jharkhand, India. Agric Water Manag 104:113–120Google Scholar
  59. Soleymani SA, Goudarzi S, Anisi MH, Hassan WH, Idris MYI, Shamshirband S, Noor NM, Ahmedy I (2016) A novel method to water level prediction using RBF and FFA. Water Resour Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1347-1 Google Scholar
  60. Tabari H, Marofi S, Sabziparvar A-A (2010) Estimation of daily pan evaporation using artificial neural network and multivariate nonlinear regression. Irrig Sci 28:399–406Google Scholar
  61. Tao PC, Delleur JW (1976) Seasonal and nonseasonal ARMA models in hydrology. J Hydraul Div Am Soc Civ Eng 102(HY10):1541–1559Google Scholar
  62. Vaheddoost B, Aksoy H, Abghari H (2016) Prediction of water level using monthly lagged data in Lake Urmia, Iran. Water Resour Manag 30:4951–4967Google Scholar
  63. Vaziri M (1997) Predicting caspian sea surface water level by ANN and ARIMA models. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 123(4):158–162Google Scholar
  64. Wan F, Wang FQ, Yuan WL (2017) The reservoir runoff forecast with artificial neural network based on ant colony optimization. Appl Ecol Environ Res 15(4):497–510Google Scholar
  65. Wang W, Van Gelder PHAJM, Vrijling JK (2005) Trend and stationarity analysis for stareamflow processes of rivers in Western Europe in the 20th century. In: IWA international conference on water economics, statistics, and finance, Rethymno, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  66. Wen X, Feng Q, Deo RC, Wu M, Si J (2016) Wavelet analysis—artificial neural network conjunction models for multi-scale monthly groundwater level predicting in an arid inland river basin, northwestern China. Hydrol Res.  https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2016.2396 Google Scholar
  67. Yang XS (2010) Firefly algorithm, stochastic test functions and design optimization. Int J Bio-inspired Comput 2(2):78–84.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIC.2010.032124 Google Scholar
  68. Yarar A, Onucyıldız M, Copty NK (2009) Modelling level change in lakes using neuro-fuzzy and artificial neural networks. J Hydrol 365:329–334Google Scholar
  69. Yaseen ZM, Jaafar O, Deo RC, Kisi O, Adamowski J, Quilty J, El-Shafie A (2016) Stream-flow forecasting using extreme learning machines: a case study in a semi-arid region in Iraq. J Hydrol 542:603–614Google Scholar
  70. Zadeh MR, Amin S, Khalili D, Singh VP (2010) Daily outflow prediction by multi layer perceptron with logistic sigmoid and tangent sigmoid activation functions. Water Resour Manag 24:2673–2688Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of TabrizTabrizIran
  2. 2.Engineering FacultyNear East UniversityNicosia, Mersin 10Turkey
  3. 3.School of Agricultural, Computational and Environmental Sciences, Centre for Sustainable Agricultural Systems & Centre for Applied Climate Sciences, Institute of Life Science and the EnvironmentUniversity of Southern QueenslandSpringfieldAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Water EngineeringUniversity of TabrizTabrizIran
  5. 5.Department of Water EngineeringUniversity of Mohaghegh ArdabiliArdabilIran
  6. 6.Graduate School of Social ScienceIstanbul Gedik UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations