<p>This reply addresses the comments provided by the discusser on the article “<i>Analysis of anchor uplift capacity in spatially varying soil using MARS model</i>” by Mukherjee et al. Acta Geotechnica (2024) (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-02212-9">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-02212-9</a>). The discusser highlighted an error in the MARS equation reported in the paper. The authors wish to clarify that this is a minor typographical error without having any impact on the reported results. The discusser has also pointed out that a very high MSE value is unacceptable for an efficient MARS model. The MSE value, being influenced by the scale of the response variable, should not be treated as an absolute indication of the efficiency of a response surface model. The MSE value was reduced to the order of 10<sup>–4</sup> when the response variable data was scaled to a range between 0 and 1.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Reply to Discussion on “Analysis of anchor uplift capacity in spatially varying soil using MARS model” by Mukherjee et al., Acta Geotechnica (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-02212-9

  • Sougata Mukherjee,
  • G. L. Sivakumar Babu

摘要

This reply addresses the comments provided by the discusser on the article “Analysis of anchor uplift capacity in spatially varying soil using MARS model” by Mukherjee et al. Acta Geotechnica (2024) (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-02212-9). The discusser highlighted an error in the MARS equation reported in the paper. The authors wish to clarify that this is a minor typographical error without having any impact on the reported results. The discusser has also pointed out that a very high MSE value is unacceptable for an efficient MARS model. The MSE value, being influenced by the scale of the response variable, should not be treated as an absolute indication of the efficiency of a response surface model. The MSE value was reduced to the order of 10–4 when the response variable data was scaled to a range between 0 and 1.