The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Selecting appropriate machine learning methods for digital soil mapping
Open accessAbstract
Abstract 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 (
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso
Tibshirani, R. (1996) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x · Cited by 51,482
Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation
Haykin, S. (1998) · Cited by 30,070
An Introduction to Statistical Learning
James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2013) · Springer Texts in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7138-7 · Cited by 12,106
A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility.
Lin, L. I.-K. (1989) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2532051 · Cited by 8,785
Neural networks: A comprehensive foundation
Tadeusiewicz, R. (1995) · Control Engineering Practice · doi:10.1016/0967-0661(95)90080-2 · Cited by 7,218
Chai, T., & Draxler, R. R. (2014) · Geoscientific Model Development · doi:10.5194/gmd-7-1247-2014 · Cited by 7,178 · cited 1×
“Therefore, a combination of metrics can provide a more complete description of the model performance [84].”
BackgroundKuhn, M., & Johnson, K. (2013) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6849-3 · Cited by 6,788
An Introduction to Kernel and Nearest-Neighbor Nonparametric Regression
Altman, N. S. (1992) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.1992.10475879 · Cited by 5,708
Ho, T. K. (2002) · Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition · doi:10.1109/icdar.1995.598994 · Cited by 5,054
Metadata
- Authors
- Khaledian, Y., & Miller, B. A.
- Venue
- Applied Mathematical Modelling
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-05
- Volume
- 81
- Pages
- 401-418
- ISSN
- 0307-904X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2995150843
- Cited by
- 448
- References
- 65
- FWCI
- 14.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Selecting appropriate machine learning methods for digital soil mapping. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.apm.2019.12.016
- The paper
- Khaledian, Y., & Miller, B. A. (2020). Selecting appropriate machine learning methods for digital soil mapping. Applied Mathematical Modelling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2019.12.016
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.