Skip to Content
AgronomyAgronomy
  • Editor’s Choice
  • Communication
  • Open Access

20 April 2023

Hybrid CNN-SVM Classifier Approaches to Process Semi-Structured Data in Sugarcane Yield Forecasting Production

,
,
and
1
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, Vaddeswaram, Guntur 522302, Andhra-Pradesh, India
2
Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Gitam (Deemed to be University), Gandhi Nagar, Rushikonda, Visakhapatnam 530045, Andhra-Pradesh, India
3
Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Vignan’s Institute of Information Technology (A), Visakhapatnam 530049, Andhra-Pradesh, India
4
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Yeosu Campus, Chonnam National University, 50, Daehak-ro, Yeosu-si 59626, Jeollanam-do, Republic of Korea

Abstract

Information communication technology (ICT) breakthroughs have boosted global social and economic progress. Most rural Indians rely on agriculture for income. The growing population requires modern agricultural practices. ICT is crucial for educating farmers on how to be environmentally friendly. It helps them create more food by solving a variety of challenges. India’s sugarcane crop is popular and lucrative. Long-term crops that require water do not need specific soil. They need water; the ground should always have adequate water due to the link between cane growth and evaporation. This research focuses on forecasting soil moisture and classifying sugarcane output; sugarcane has so many applications that it must be categorized. This research examines these claims: The first phase model predicts soil moisture using two-level ensemble classifiers. Secondly, to boost performance, the proposed ensemble model integrates the Gaussian probabilistic method (GPM), the convolutional neural network (CNN), and support vector machines (SVM). The suggested approach aims to correctly anticipate future soil moisture measurements affecting crop growth and cultivation. The proposed model is 89.53% more accurate than conventional neural network classifiers. The recommended models’ outcomes will assist farmers and agricultural authorities in boosting production.

1. Introduction

Precision agriculture uses cutting-edge technology to improve crop yield and quality while meeting growing food demand [1]. Farmers may optimize the efficacy of their seeds, water, fertilizers, and other inputs by employing advanced farming techniques. The goal is to maximize financial benefit while reducing expenditures and the effects on the natural environment by using the correct parameters at the right time and place.
Farmers must monitor soil moisture. This entails obtaining a more precise image of the soil’s needs and available water. An amount of 70% of the world’s water is utilized for agriculture, 20% is utilized for industry, and 10% is utilized for residences, according to UN figures (http://www.worldometers.info/) (accessed on 10 February 2022) [2]. To monitor and plan irrigation, you must know the soil’s water content. Sugarcane is a popular crop in India. It is the critical raw material for the nation’s second-largest agricultural sector, behind only the textile industry.
Additionally, it serves as the foundation for producing every significant sweetener in the country. Long-term growth does not need a specific soil type, but it requires much water. The soil must have enough water during the growing season, and cane growth depends on how much cane sheds. In addition to categorizing sugarcane yield, the research aims to anticipate soil moisture.

Hybrid Model for Better Sugarcane Yield Production

Agriculture has since incorporated soft computing to manage crops, anticipate agricultural yields, and monitor environmental conditions [3]. In India, sugarcane is one of the most important crops [4].
Sugarcane businesses provide significant benefits to rural areas in terms of the extra cash they generate and the job possibilities they make available. The proposed study will investigate how different soft computing technologies may be used to improve the categorization and forecasting of agricultural data to find better solutions to existing problems.
This section offers a condensed summary of the critical issues and contributions that this study has made.
  • In order to provide predictions about the amount of moisture present in the soil, a mixed model was used. In order to do this, the most advantageous aspects of the GPM, CNN, and SVM algorithms may be merged.
  • CNN is used to sort the data on the production of sugarcane.
According to a thorough literature survey, CNN analysis is helpful for crop management and yield research in precision agriculture. They improve over time by uncovering new patterns, not in the training datasets.
Ensemble learning’s power comes from its capacity to train several algorithms and combine their results to obtain more accurate conclusions. The hybrid model, an ensembling technique, produces accurate predictions. To make hybrid solutions for real-world problems, you must combine at least two methods to compensate for each other’s flaws. Because agriculture generates so much data, precision agriculture applications require various data processing technologies.
Academics have created algorithms for agricultural data applications. These algorithms will help farmers and agronomists manage crops and adopt agricultural strategies to guarantee a continual crop supply. This study uses neural networks, GPM, and SVM algorithms to improve agricultural data prediction and categorization.
The primary objective of this research is to enhance the precision of agricultural yield in sugarcane production in agriculture.
  • Sugarcane production has been the most prominent crop in Andhra Pradesh, India.
  • Certain soil moisture methods may be deployed for better crop yield.
  • Developing forecasting models for soil moisture data sets using convolutional neural network ensembles was performed. To do this, the attributes of SVM and Gaussian function were combined. Hybrid model (CNN + SVM + Gaussian) approaches are being used to train the model’s parameters to increase the accuracy of a model that detects sugarcane yields.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. The Proposed Ensemble Model for Soil Moisture (Hybrid Model)

Introduction to the Model Deployment

A network of wireless soil moisture sensors is placed to assess how wet the top layer of soil is. The base station stored the sensor’s time series data. The soil moisture data from the base station are analyzed to fix the problem.
The study presented aims to enhance soil moisture forecasting. The suggested ensemble model comprises GPM, CNN, and SVM individual learners. The ZeroR classifier provides predictions and is a meta-learner. The ZeroR classifier is the easiest to use and can predict the most frequent category. It helps to compare classifiers to a standard.

3.2. Gaussian Probabilistic Method for CNN-SVM

The Gaussian probabilistic functions were used with the CNN. The network’s output is a linear blend of the inputs’ GPM functions [30] and neuronal characteristics. Because it uses supervised learning, it can represent nonlinear data and help find the proper application. Input, concealed, and output are GPM network layers (Figure 1). GPM allows faster learning, better approximation, and more accessible network design than other CNNs. We will utilize least-squares mean-squared to determine optimum weights.
Figure 1. Gaussian probabilistic for the Soil Perception for adding nonlinearity.

3.3. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN)

A feed-forward neural network is similar to a CNN. Data are processed to provide valuable results. CNN uses backpropagation, as well as semi-structured data [31], to train networks. Except for the input nodes, every node in the web is a processing element or a neuron. During “training,” the output and hidden layer weights are changed. Two successive layers cannot be fully connected. Unnecessary consequences may be removed after or during learning. Figure 2 shows a CNN network with hidden layers. Multilayer perceptrons offer two advantages over other varieties.
Figure 2. A CNN with N Inputs for precision agriculture.
Discriminant analysis approaches multilayer perceptrons to make no assumptions about how data are arranged or how covariance matrices of categorizable data sets are presented. Second, multilayer perceptrons allow for the creation of disconnected and nonsequential regions.

3.4. Support Vector Machines

SVMs are a “supervised machine learning” approach used for classification. This is machine learning. It develops an objective function using Vapnik-Chervonenkis (VC) [32] theory and structural risk reduction, and then it finds a partition hyperplane that meets class requirements. A SVM training approach organizes incoming data into one of two classes using a series of training datasets. Using two classifications, this model contains incoming data. SVM operates binary division to establish the border between two classes, such as Positive-class 1 and Negative-class 2. Figure 3 shows two classes, with the hyperplane in between. This minimizes the distance between the plane and each data point. The nearest data points are used to create the support vectors.
Figure 3. Classification of SVM with Hyperplanes as Class 0 and Class 1.

3.5. Two-Hierarchical Hybrid Ensemble Model

Figure 4 illustrates how the two-level soil moisture forecasting ensemble model presented is constructed from individual blocks and how it operates. And the working of the proposed algorithm is elaborated below.
Figure 4. The proposed model for soil precision in agriculture using Hybrid Algorithm.
The algorithm of the proposed approach is given below.
Input: Original data set Do and the Preprocessed Dataset Dp.
Set of heterogeneous first level learning classifiers Lf = {GPM, CNN, SVM}
Second-level learning algorithm Ls = {ZeroR}
Start
Prepare the dataset for ensemble training and testing.
Training dataset—Dataset used for ensemble training (TR). This
dataset contains soil moisture data.
Testing dataset—Dataset used for ensemble testing (TE). This
dataset contains soil moisture data.
for i = 1 to n
//where n represents the number of heterogeneous classifiers
hti = Lfi (TR)
Train an individual first-level learner by applying the corresponding
learning algorithm and the training data set
end
The output of base classifiers
Test the output from step 4 by using the second-level learning
algorithm Ls.
Output the predicted soil moisture value
Stop

3.6. Godavari Plateau Delta Region Dataset

The research used soil moisture measurements from the Godavari River Plateau (https://apwrims.ap.gov.in) (accessed on 10 November 2022) and Krishna River Plateau (https://krmb.gov.in/krmb/home) [33], which involved online databases for both. The Krishna River plateau Soil Moisture Monitoring Network provides long-term soil moisture time data from 18 stations. The average of twice-monthly measurements is used. Figure 5 shows monthly data from 2016 to 2021 from a 10–30 cm layer at Station 1. Godavari river plateau Creek drains 600 km2. Fourteen stations detect soil moisture in the Godavari River plateau Creek’s basin. At 30-min intervals, soil moisture is monitored and averaged. Figure 6 shows the average daily soil moisture in the top 30 cm of station K4’s profile from 3 January 2022, to 31 August 2022.
Figure 5. Shows the soil moisture of the Godavari Plateau Region.
Figure 6. Krishna River plateau Soil Moisture.

3.7. Performance Evaluation Metrics of the Proposed Model

To determine how well the proposed model functions, statistical metrics, such as mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute % error (MAPE), which are shown in Equations (1)–(3), are utilized.
M A E = i = 1 n | x i x i | n
R M S E = i 1 n ( x i x i ) 2 n
M A P E = 1 n i = 1 n | ( x i x i ) x i | × 100
W h e r e x i = a c t u a l _ v a l u e x i = Pr e d i c t e d _ V a l u e n = n u m b e r _ o f _ o b s e r v a t i o n s
The main objective of the function was to decrease the cost function between the actual and predicted values.

4. Results and Discussions

The Keras toolkit was used in the simulation-based testing that was carried out. This open-source program can predict time series and provides a machine-learning library that may be used for data mining jobs. As a consequence of this, this instrument is utilized to evaluate how well the proposed plan works. It is essential to partition the initial dataset into training and test sets before attempting any model evaluation. In this scenario, 70% of the dataset is put toward the training process, while the remaining 30% is used for testing.
Concerning the soil moisture datasets from the Krishna River plateau and the Godavari River plateau, tests were run with GPM, CNN, SVM, single-level GPM ensemble, single-level CNN ensemble, single-level SVM ensemble, and the proposed two-level soil moisture prediction model. Additionally, GPM, CNN, and SVM ensembles were tested individually.
The bagging approach generates single-level ensembles from GPM, CNN, and SVM classifiers. Examples of these ensembles are the GPM ensemble, the CNN ensemble, and the SVM ensemble. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the intended training and testing data projections for the Krishna River plateau data set when it was in the training phase and while it was in the testing phase, respectively. Figure 9 and Figure 10 illustrate how a prediction was derived from the training and test data in the Godavari River plateau dataset.
Figure 7. Forecast of training data—Godavari River plateau dataset.
Figure 8. Forecast of testing data—Krishna River plateau dataset.
Figure 9. Forecast of training data—Godavari soil Moisture Dataset.
Figure 10. Forecast of testing data—Krishna Soil Moisture Dataset.
The one-step forward estimates of the future are shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12 for two different datasets.
Figure 11. Future forecast of testing data—Godavari Soil Moisture Dataset.
Figure 12. Future forecast of testing data–Krishna Soil Moisture Dataset.
Each machine learning method was applied to the same datasets to determine how accurately the suggested ensemble model could categorize items. Examples of individual classifiers are GPM, CNN, and SVM, in addition to the ensembles that go along with each of these. Using prediction accuracy, mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean absolute % age error, the performance of the proposed model was compared to that of current machine learning approaches. Table 1 compares the effectiveness of several classifiers about the version of the one selected for use with the soil moisture data from the Krishna River plateau and Godavari River plateau. This is seen in Figure 13 and Figure 14.
Table 1. Performance of the various classifiers with the proposed model.
Figure 13. Performance of the various classifiers with the proposed model.
Figure 14. Performance of the various classifiers with the proposed model.
The ability of the two sets of data presented in Table 2 to accurately anticipate measurements is seen in Figure 15 and Figure 16. The number of various classifiers in the testing set that could predict the one displayed accurately is one way to determine how accurate a measurement’s prediction is.
Table 2. Prediction accuracy of various classifiers.
Figure 15. Prediction accuracy of different classifiers.
Figure 16. Prediction accuracy of different classifiers for the Godavari River plateau.
Compared to other individual classifiers, the SVM classifier has an accuracy ranging between 76.85% and 79%. The accuracy of the SVM-bagging ensemble is 78.81% and 82.56% higher than that of other bagging ensembles. Still, the accuracy of the proposed two-level ensemble model is 83.52% and 89.56% higher than that of all other ensemble models. The previously used solo classifiers and the single-level ensemble classifiers constructed using GPM, CNN, and SVM outperform the newly presented ensemble model. According to this research’s findings, ensemble neural networks to forecast soil moisture data may result in more accurate forecasts. Using this model will assist farmers and others responsible for making policies in creating future irrigation plans. In this particular piece of research, a method for the long-term collection of data on soil moisture is investigated. The GPM, CNN, and SVM classifiers each provide their own set of helpful rules to the ensemble model that is being proposed. The experiment’s findings demonstrate that, when several models are effectively connected, they are superior to individual learners in predicting soil moisture. Farmers can profit from this strategy, since it provides them with reliable information.
Alterations to the methods used to cultivate crops, as well as new knowledge on the moisture content of the ground in the years to come. The findings of the studies indicate that the suggested ensemble model accomplishes its objective of increasing prediction accuracy. The most fantastic accuracy of prediction was found to be 83.53% for both of the datasets utilized and 89.53%, respectively. In addition to these applications, soil moisture estimates may be used to plan irrigation, calculate agricultural productivity, provide early warning of drought conditions, and forecast runoff.

5. Conclusions

It has been observed that sugarcane growth can be forecasted by looking at the pedogenetic traits of the soil moisture. The GPM helps to learn more about the different qualities of soil and the quickest ways to handle sugarcane. Using machine learning in sugarcane output was interesting because it allowed farmers to take advantage of traits that could be taught rapidly and cheaply.
Regarding the classification process, the hybrid approach recommended for the hybrid model for learning has an accuracy rate of 89.53%. The proposed system’s efficiency was evaluated and contrasted with the efficiency of various other machine learning methods. The findings demonstrate that the strategy that was recommended is effective.

6. Future Study

The following alterations are currently in the works. Installing real-time sensor nodes across agricultural areas to monitor various factors for research purposes is important. More study is required to determine which route design will be most effective for farming data processing applications. Using the methodology outlined in this research work, researchers have conducted studies on crops that are more economically significant. To investigate and assess the performance of various hybrid evolutionary computing technologies to find a solution to the existing challenge is important.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.S.N.J.; methodology, D.B.; software, E.S.N.J. and D.B.; validation, T.-h.K. and E.S.N.J.; formal analysis, N.T.R.; writing—original draft preparation, E.S.N.J., T.-h.K., D.B. and N.T.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are publicly available and Benchmarked.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bhargavi, G.; Arunnehru, J. An extreme machine learning model for evaluating landslide hazard zonation in nilgiris district, causative factors and risk assessment using earth observation techniques. In Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies; Springer Nature Singapore: Singapore, 2023; Available online: www.scopus.com (accessed on 23 November 2022). [CrossRef]
  2. United Nations World Meter. Available online: https://www.worldometers.info (accessed on 10 April 2023).
  3. Huang, Y.; Lan, Y.; Thomson, S.J.; Fang, A.; Hoffmann, W.C.; Lacey, R.E. Development of soft computing and applications in agricultural and biological engineering. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2010, 71, 107–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Asha, R.; Babu, G.S.K.; Teja, T.S. Production and marketing of sugarcane in Visakhapatnam district of Andhra Pradesh. J. Res. Angrau 2019, 47, 69–77. Available online: https://epubs.icar.org.in/index.php/TJRA/article/view/133728 (accessed on 23 November 2022).
  5. Singh, P.; Pandey, P.C.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Pavlides, A.; Srivastava, P.K.; Koutsias, N.; Deng, K.A.K.; Bao, Y. Hyperspectral remote sensing in precision agriculture: Present status, challenges, and future trends. In Earth Observation, Hyperspectral Remote Sensing; Pandey, P.C., Srivastava, P.K., Balzter, H., Bhattacharya, B., Petropoulos, G.P., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 121–146. ISBN 9780081028940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Singh, D.; Jain, N.; Jain, P.; Kayal, P.; Kumawat, S.; Batra, N. PlantDoc: A Dataset for Visual Plant Disease Detection. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1911.10317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Anas, M.; Liao, F.; Verma, K.K.; Sarwar, M.A.; Mahmood, A.; Chen, Z.-L.; Li, Q.; Zeng, X.-P.; Liu, Y.; Li, Y.-R. Fate of nitrogen in agriculture and environment: Agronomic, eco-physiological and molecular approaches to improve nitrogen use efficiency. Biol. Res. 2020, 53, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Kai, P.M.; de Oliveira, B.M.; de Costa, R.M. Deep Learning-Based Method for Classification of Sugarcane Varieties. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nihar, A.; Patel, N.R.; Danodia, A. Machine-Learning-Based Regional Yield Forecasting for Sugarcane Crop in Uttar Pradesh, India. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2022, 50, 1519–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Militante, S.V.; Gerardo, B.D. Detecting Sugarcane Diseases through Adaptive Deep Learning Models of Convolutional Neural Network. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 6th International Conference on Engineering Technologies and Applied Sciences (ICETAS), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20–21 December 2019; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, J.; Guo, J.Y. Sugarcane cultivation management technology. Agric. Technol. Serv. 2013, 30, 321–322. [Google Scholar]
  12. Everingham, Y.; Sexton, J.; Skocaj, D.; Inman-Bamber, G. Accurate prediction of sugarcane yield using a random forest algorithm. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Talaviya, T.; Shah, D.; Patel, N.; Yagnik, H.; Shah, M. Implementation of artificial intelligence in agriculture for optimisation of irrigation and application of pesticides and herbicides. Artif. Intell. Agric. 2020, 4, 58–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Blackmore, I.; Rivera, C.; Waters, W.F.; Iannotti, L.; Lesorogol, C. The impact of seasonality and climate variability on livelihood security in the Ecuadorian Andes. Clim. Risk Manag. 2021, 32, 100279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kok, Z.H.; Shariff, A.R.M.; Alfatni, M.S.M.; Khairunniza-Bejo, S. Support Vector Machine in Precision Agriculture: A review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 191, 106546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tavva Srinivas, M. Nedunchezhiyan The nexus between adoption and diffusion of production technologies with yield: Evidence from sweet potato farmers in India. Technol. Soc. 2020, 60, 101208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sequeros, E.; Schreinemachers, P.; Depenbusch, L.; Shwe, T.; Nair, R.M. Impact and returns on investment of mungbean research and development in Myanmar. Agric. Food Secur. 2020, 9, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Uyeh, D.D.; Iyiola, O.; Mallipeddi, R.; Asem-Hiablie, S.; Amaizu, M.; Ha, Y.; Park, T. Grid Search for Lowest Root Mean Squared Error in Predicting Optimal Sensor Location in Protected Cultivation Systems. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 920284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Solomon, S.; Swapna, M. Indian Sugar Industry: Towards Self-reliance for Sustainability. Sugar Tech 2022, 24, 630–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Tian, H.; Wang, P.; Tansey, K.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, S.; Li, H. An LSTM neural network for improving wheat yield estimates by integrating remote sensing data and meteorological data in the Guanzhong Plain, PR China. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2021, 310, 108629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kai, P.M.; Oliveira, B.M.; Vieira, G.S.; Soares, F.; Costa, R.M. Effects of resampling image methods in sugarcane classification and the potential use of vegetation indices related to chlorophyll. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 45th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), Madrid, Spain, 12–16 July 2021; pp. 1526–1531. [Google Scholar]
  22. Panwar, E.; Singh, D.; Sharma, A.K. Exploring the Possibility of Assessing Biochemical Variables in Sugarcane Crop with Sentinel-2 Data. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS 2020), Virtual, 26 September–2 October 2020; pp. 3712–3715. [Google Scholar]
  23. Shi, L.; Duan, Q.; Ma, X.; Weng, M. The Research of Support Vector Machine in Agricultural Data Classification. In Proceedings of the Computer and Computing Technologies in Agriculture V. CCTA 2011. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Beijing, China, 29–31 October 2011; . Li, D., Chen, Y., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; Volume 370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Abdel-Sattar, M.; Aboukarima, A.M.; Alnahdi, B.M. Application of artificial neural network and support vector regression in predicting mass of ber fruits (Ziziphus mauritiana Lamk.) based on fruit axial dimensions. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0245228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Lv, M.; Wei, H.; Fu, X.; Wang, W.; Zhou, D. A Loosely Coupled Extended Kalman Filter Algorithm for Agricultural Scene-Based Multi-Sensor Fusion. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 849260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gałęzewski, L.; Jaskulska, I.; Jaskulski, D.; Lewandowski, A.; Szypłowska, A.; Wilczek, A.; Szczepańczyk, M. Analysis of the need for soil moisture, salinity and temperature sensing in agriculture: A case study in Poland. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 16660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lu, J.; Tan, L.; Jiang, H. Review on Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) Applied to Plant Leaf Disease Classification. Agriculture 2021, 11, 707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Matko, V.; Koprivnikar, J. Quartz sensor for water absorption measurement in glass-fiber resins. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 1998, 47, 1159–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Eze, P.N.; Kumahor, S.K. Gaussian process simulation of soil Zn micronutrient spatial heterogeneity and uncertainty—A performance appraisal of three semivariogram models. Sci. Afr. 2019, 5, e00110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cravero, A.; Pardo, S.; Galeas, P.; López Fenner, J.; Caniupán, M. Data Type and Data Sources for Agricultural Big Data and Machine Learning. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gey, S. Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension of axis-parallel cuts. Commun. Stat. Theory Methods 2018, 47, 2291–2296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Andhra Pradesh Water Resources Management. Available online: https://apwrims.ap.gov.in/ (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  33. Krishna River Board Management. Available online: https://krmb.gov.in/krmb (accessed on 10 November 2022).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.