COVID-19 Outbreak Prediction with Machine

Learning
Sina F. Ardabili 1, Amir Mosavi 2,3,*, Pedram Ghamisi 4, Filip Ferdinand 2 , Annamaria R.
Varkonyi-Koczy 2, Uwe Reuter 3, Timon Rabczuk 5, Peter M. Atkinson 6
1 Thuringian Institute of Sustainability and Climate Protection, 07743 Jena, Germany; [email protected]
2 Department of Mathematics and Informatics, J. Selye University, 94501 Komarno, Slovakia; [email protected]
3 Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technische Universität Dresden, 01069 Dresden, Germany.

4 Machine Learning Group, Exploration Division, Helmholtz Institute Freiberg for Resource Technology,

Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; [email protected]

5 Institute of Structural Mechanics (ISM), Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, 99423 Weimar, Germany

6 Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK; [email protected]

* Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: date; Accepted: date; Published: date

Abstract: Several outbreak prediction models for COVID-19 are being used by officials around the
world to make informed-decisions and enforce relevant control measures. Among the standard
models for COVID-19 global pandemic prediction, simple epidemiological and statistical models
have received more attention by authorities, and they are popular in the media. Due to a high level
of uncertainty and lack of essential data, standard models have shown low accuracy for long-term
prediction. Although the literature includes several attempts to address this issue, the essential
generalization and robustness abilities of existing models needs to be improved. This paper presents
a comparative analysis of machine learning and soft computing models to predict the COVID-19
outbreak. Among a wide range of machine learning models investigated, two models showed
promising results (i.e., multi-layered perceptron, MLP, and adaptive network-based fuzzy inference
system, ANFIS). Based on the results reported here, and due to the highly complex nature of the
COVID-19 outbreak and variation in its behavior from nation-to-nation, this study suggests
machine learning as an effective tool to model the outbreak.

Keywords: COVID-19; Coronavirus disease; Coronavirus; SARS-CoV-2; model; prediction;

machine learning

1. Introduction
Access to accurate outbreak prediction models is essential to obtain insights into the likely
spread and consequences of infectious diseases. Governments and other legislative bodies rely on
insights from prediction models to suggest new policies and to assess the effectiveness of the enforced
policies [1]. The novel Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been reported to infect more than 2
million people, with more than 132,000 confirmed deaths worldwide. The recent global COVID-19
pandemic has exhibited a nonlinear and complex nature [2]. In addition, the outbreak has differences
with other recent outbreaks, which brings into question the ability of standard models to deliver
accurate results [3]. Besides the numerous known and unknown variables involved in the spread, the
complexity of population-wide behavior in various geopolitical areas and differences in containment
strategies had dramatically increased model uncertainty [4]. Consequently, standard epidemiological
models face new challenges to deliver more reliable results. To overcome this challenge, many novel
models have emerged which introduce several assumptions to modeling (e.g., adding social
distancing in the form of curfews, quarantines, etc.) [5-7].
To elaborate on the effectiveness of enforcing such assumptions understanding standard
dynamic epidemiological (e.g., susceptible-infected-recovered, SIR) models is essential [8]. The
modeling strategy is formed around the assumption of transmitting the infectious disease through
contacts, considering three different classes of well-mixed populations; susceptible to infection (class
Mathematics 2020, 8, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics
S), infected (class I), and the removed population (class R is devoted to those who have recovered,
developed immunity, been isolated or passed away). It is further assumed that the class I transmits
the infection to class S where the number of probable transmissions is proportional to the total
number of contacts [9-11]. The number of individuals in the class S progresses as a time-series, often
computed using a basic differential equation as follows:
𝑑𝑆 (1)
= −𝛼𝑆𝐼
𝑑𝑡
where 𝐼 is the infected population, and 𝑆 is the susceptible population both as fractions. 𝛼
represents the daily reproduction rate of the differential equation, regulating the number of
susceptible infectious contacts. The value of 𝑆 in the time-series produced by the differential
equation gradually declines. Initially, it is assumed that at the early stage of the outbreak 𝑆 ≈ 1 while
𝑑𝐼
the number of individuals in class I is negligible. Thus, the increment becomes linear and the
𝑑𝑡
class I eventually can be computed as follows:
𝑑𝐼
= 𝛼𝑆𝐼 − 𝛽𝐼 (2)
𝑑𝑡
where 𝛽 regulates the daily rate of new infections by quantifying the number of infected individuals
competent in the transmission. Furthermore, the class R, representing individuals excluded from the
spread of infection, is computed as follows:
𝑑𝑅
= 𝛽𝐼 (3)
𝑑𝑡
Under the unconstrained conditions of the excluded group, Eq. 3, the outbreak exponential
growth can be computed as follows:
𝐼 (𝑡) ≈ 𝐼0 𝑒𝑥𝑝{(𝛼 − 𝛽)} (4)

The outbreaks of a wide range of infectious diseases have been modeled using Eq. 4. However,
for the COVID-19 outbreak prediction, due to the strict measures enforced by authorities, the
susceptibility to infection has been manipulated dramatically. For example, in China, Italy, France,
Hungary and Spain the SIR model cannot present promising results, as individuals committed
voluntarily to quarantine and limited their social interaction. However, for countries where
containment measures were delayed (e.g., United States) the model has shown relative accuracy [12].
Figure. 1 shows the inaccuracy of conventional models applied to the outbreak in Italy by comparing
the actual number of confirmed infections and epidemiological model predictions1. The SEIR models
through considering the significant incubation period during which individuals have been infected
showed progress in improving the model accuracy for Varicella and Zika outbreak [13,14]. SEIR
models assume that the incubation period is a random variable and similarly to the SIR model, there
would be a disease-free-equilibrium [15,16]. It is worth mentioning that SEIR model will not work
well where the parameters are non-stationary through time [17]. A key cause of non-stationarity is
where the social mixing (which determines the contact network) changes through time. Social mixing
determines the reproductive number 𝑅0 which is the number of susceptible individuals that an
infected person will infect. Where 𝑅0 is less than 1 the epidemic will die out. Where it is greater than
1 it will spread. 𝑅0 for COVID-19 prior to lockdown was estimated as a massive 4 presenting a
pandemic. It is expected that lockdown measures should bring 𝑅0 down to less than 1. the KEY
reason why SEIR models are difficult to fit for COVID-19 is non-stationarity of mixing, caused by
nudging (step-by-step) intervention measures.
One can calculate that standard epidemiological models can be effective and reliable only if (a)
the social interactions are stationary through time (i.e., no changes in interventions or control
measures), or (b) there exists a great deal of knowledge of class R with which to compute Eq. 3. Often
to acquire information on class R, several novel models included data from social media or call data
records (CDR), which showed promising results [18-25]. However, observation of the behavior of
COVID-19 in several countries demonstrates a high degree of uncertainty and complexity [26]. Thus,
for epidemiological models to be able to deliver reliable results, they must be adapted to the local
situation with an insight into susceptibility to infection [27]. This imposes a huge limit on the
generalization ability and robustness of conventional models. Advancing accurate models with a
great generalization ability to be scalable to model both the regional and global pandemic is, thus,
essential [28].
A further drawback of conventional epidemiological models is the short lead-time. To evaluate
the performance of the models, the median success of the outbreak prediction presents useful
information. The median prediction factor can be calculated as follows:
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑓= (5)
𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

As the lead-time increases, the accuracy of the model declines. For instance, for the COVID-19
outbreak in Italy, the accuracy of the model for more than 5-days-in-the-future reduces from 𝑓 = 1
for the first five days to 𝑓 = 0.86 for day 6 [12].

Figure 1. Italy’s COVID-19 outbreak: the actual number of confirmed infections vs. epidemiological
model.

Due to the complexity and the large-scale nature of the problem in developing epidemiological
models, machine learning (ML) has recently gained attention for building outbreak prediction
models. ML approaches aim at developing models with higher generalization ability and greater
prediction reliability for longer lead-times [29-33].
Although ML methods were used in modeling former pandemics (e.g., Ebola, Cholera, swine
fever, H1N1 influenza, dengue fever, Zika, oyster norovirus [8,34-43]), there is a gap in the literature
for peer-reviewed papers dedicated to COVID-19. Table 1 represents notable ML methods used for
outbreak prediction. These ML methods are limited to the basic methods of random forest, neural
networks, Bayesian networks, Naïve Bayes, genetic programming and classification and regression
tree (CART). Although ML has long been established as a standard tool for modeling natural disasters
and weather forecasting [44,45], its application in modeling outbreak is still in the early stages. More
sophisticated ML methods (e.g., hybrids, ensembles) are yet to be explored. Consequently, the
contribution of this paper is to explore the application of ML for modeling the COVID-19 pandemic.
This paper aims to investigate the generalization ability of the proposed ML models and the accuracy
of the proposed models for different lead-times.
 Table 1. Notable ML methods for outbreak prediction

Authors Journal Outbreak infection Machine learning

Transboundary and
[39] Swine fever
Emerging Diseases Random Forest
[35] Geospatial Health Dengue fever Neural Network
[42] BMC Research Notes Influenza Random Forest
Journal of Public
[41] Dengue/Aedes Bayesian Network
Health Medicine
[38] Informatica Dengue LogitBoost
Global Ecology and
[8] H1N1 flu
Biogeography Neural Network
Adopted multi-regression
[34] Current Science Dengue
and Naïve Bayes
Environment
[36] Oyster norovirus
International Neural Network
[37] Water Research Oyster norovirus Genetic programming
Infectious Disease Classification and
[43] Dengue
Modelling regression tree (CART)

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section two describes the methods and materials.
The results are given in section three. Sections four and five present the discussion and the
conclusions, respectively.

2. Materials and Methods

Data were collected from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country for five
countries, including Italy, Germany, Iran, USA, and China on total cases over 30 days. Figure 2
presents the total case number (cumulative statistic) for the considered countries. Currently, to
contain the outbreak, the governments have implemented various measures to reduce transmission
through inhibiting people’s movements and social activities. Although for advancing the
epidemiological models information on changes in social distancing is essential, for modeling with
machine learning no assumption is required. As can be seen in Figure 2, the growth rate in China is
greater than that for Italy, Iran, Germany and the USA in the early weeks of the disease.

Figure 2. Cumulative number of cases for five countries during thirty days
(https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country)
 The next step is to find the best model for the estimation of the time-series data. Logistic, Linear,
Logarithmic, Quadratic, Cubic, Compound, Power and exponential equations (Table 2) are employed
to develop the desired model.

Table 2. Models for mathematical forecasting

Model description Model name Equation number

R=A/(1+exp(((4*µ)*(L-x)/A)+2)) Logistic (6)

R=Ax-B Linear (7)
R=A+ Blog(x) Logarithmic (8)
R=A+Bx+Cx2 Quadratic (9)
R=A+Bx+Cx2+Dx3 Cubic (10)
R=ABx Compound (11)
R=AxB Power (12)
R=AEXP(Bx) Exponential (13)

A, B, C, µ, and L are parameters (constants) that characterize the above-mentioned functions.

These constants need to be estimated to develop an accurate estimation model. One of the goals of
this study was to model time-series data based on the logistic microbial growth model. For this
purpose, the modified equation of logistic regression was used to estimate and predict the prevalence
(i.e., I/Population at a given time point) of disease as a function of time. Estimation of the parameters
was performed using evolutionary algorithms like GA, particle swarm optimizer, and the grey wolf
optimizer. These algorithms are discussed in the following.

Evolutionary algorithms
Evolutionary algorithms (EA) are powerful tools for solving optimization problems through
intelligent methods. These algorithms are often inspired by natural processes to search for all possible
answers as an optimization problem [46-48]. In the present study, the frequently used algorithms,
(i.e., genetic algorithm (GA), particle swarm optimizer (PSO) and grey wolf optimizer (GWO)) are
employed to estimate the parameters by solving a cost function.

Genetic Algorithm (GA)

GAs are considered a subset of "computational models" inspired by the concept of evolution
[49]. These algorithms use "Potential Solutions" or "Candidate Solutions" or "Possible Hypotheses"
for a specific problem in a "chromosome-like" data structure. GA maintains vital information stored
in these chromosome data structures by applying "Recombination Operators" to chromosome-like
data structures [50-53]. In many cases, GAs are employed as "Function Optimizer" algorithms, which
are algorithms used to optimize "Objective Functions." Of course, the range of applications that use
the GA to solve problems is very wide [52,54]. The implementation of the GA usually begins with the
production of a population of chromosomes generated randomly and bound up and down by the
variables of the problem. In the next step, the generated data structures (chromosomes) are evaluated,
and chromosomes that can better display the optimal solution of the problem are more likely to be
used to produce new chromosomes. The degree of "goodness" of an answer is usually measured by
the population of the current candidate's answers [55-59]. The main algorithm of a GA process is
demonstrated in Figure 3.
 Problem

Modeling of the Evaluation of Selection

problem the Population
Crossover
Initial
population
Formation of the Choosing the
initial population parents
Mutation New population

Offspring
Replacing the new population size

Response

Figure 3. GA algorithm

In the present study, GA [59] was employed for estimation of the parameters of Eq. 6 to 13. The
population number was selected to be 300 and the maximum generation (as iteration number) was
determined to be 500 according to different trial and error processes to reduce the cost function value.
The cost function was defined as the mean square error between the target and estimated values
according to Eq. 14:

(𝐸𝑠−𝑇)2
𝑀𝑆𝐸 = √ (14)
𝑁

where, Es refer to estimated values, T refers to the target values and N refers to the number of data.

Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)

In 1995, Kennedy and Eberhart [60] introduced the PSO as an uncertain search method for
optimization purposes. The algorithm was inspired by the mass movement of birds looking for food.
A group of birds accidentally looked for food in a space. There is only one piece of food in the search
space. Each solution in PSO is called a particle, which is equivalent to a bird in the bird's mass
movement algorithm. Each particle has a value that is calculated by a competency function which
increases as the particle in the search space approaches the target (food in the bird’s movement
model). Each particle also has a velocity that guides the motion of the particle. Each particle continues
to move in the problem space by tracking the optimal particles in the current state [60-62]. The PSO
method is rooted in Reynolds' work, which is an early simulation of the social behavior of birds. The
mass of particles in nature represents collective intelligence. Consider the collective movement of fish
in water or birds during migration. All members move in perfect harmony with each other, hunt
together if they are to be hunted, and escape from the clutches of a predator by moving another prey
if they are to be preyed upon [63-65]. Particle properties in this algorithm include [65-67]:
• Each particle independently looks for the optimal point.
• Each particle moves at the same speed at each step.
• Each particle remembers its best position in the space.
• The particles work together to inform each other of the places they are looking for.
• Each particle is in contact with its neighboring particles.
• Every particle is aware of the particles that are in the neighborhood.
• Every particle is known as one of the best particles in its neighborhood.
 The PSO implementation steps can be summarized as: the first step establishes and evaluates
the primary population. The second step determines the best personal memories and the best
collective memories. The third step updates the speed and position. If the conditions for stopping are
not met, the cycle will go to the second step.
The PSO algorithm is a population-based algorithm [68,69]. This property makes it less likely to
be trapped in a local minimum. This algorithm operates according to possible rules, not definite rules.
Therefore, PSO is a random optimization algorithm that can search for unspecified and complex
areas. This makes PSO more flexible and durable than conventional methods. PSO deals with non-
differential target functions because the PSO uses the information result (performance index or target
function to guide the search in the problem area). The quality of the proposed route response does
not depend on the initial population. Starting from anywhere in the search space, the algorithm
ultimately converges on the optimal answer. PSO has great flexibility to control the balance between
the local and overall search space. This unique PSO property overcomes the problem of improper
convergence and increases the search capacity. All of these features make PSO different from the GA
and other innovative algorithms [61,65,67].
In the present study, PSO was employed for estimation of the parameters of Eq. 6 to 13. The
population number was selected to be 1000 and the iteration number was determined to be 500
according to different trial and error processes to reduce the cost function value. The cost function
was defined as the mean square error between the target and estimated values according to Eq. 14.

Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO)

One recently developed smart optimization algorithm that has attracted the attention of many
researchers is the grey wolf algorithm. Like most other intelligent algorithms, GWO is inspired by
nature. The main idea of the grey wolf algorithm is based on the leadership hierarchy in wolf groups
and how they hunt [70]. In general, there are four categories of wolves among the herd of grey wolves,
alpha, beta, delta and omega. Alpha wolves are at the top of the herd's leadership pyramid, and the
rest of the wolves take orders from the alpha group and follow them (usually there is only one wolf
as an alpha wolf in each herd). Beta wolves are in the lower tier, but their superiority over Delta and
omega wolves allows them to provide advice and help to alpha wolves. Beta wolves are responsible
for regulating and orienting the herd based on alpha movement. Delta wolves, which are next in line
for the power pyramid in the wolf herd, are usually made up of guards, elderly population,
caregivers of damaged wolves, and so on. Omega wolves are also the weakest in the power hierarchy
[70]. Eq. 15 to 18 are used to model the hunting tool:

⃗ = |𝐶 , ⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝐷 𝑋𝑝 (𝑡) − ⃗⃗⃗
𝑋 (𝑡)| (15)

𝑋 (𝑡 + 1) = ⃗⃗⃗⃗ ⃗
𝑋𝑝 (𝑡) − 𝐴, 𝐷 (16)

𝐴 = 2𝑎 , ⃗⃗⃗
𝑟1 − 𝑎 (17)

𝐶 = 2𝑟⃗⃗⃗2 (18)

where t is represents repetition of the algorithm. 𝐴 and 𝐶 are vectors of the prey site and the 𝑋
vectors represent the locations of the grey wolves. 𝑎 is linearly reduced from 2 to 0 during the
repetition. ⃗⃗⃗
𝑟1 and ⃗⃗⃗
𝑟2 are random vectors where each element can take on realizations in the range
[0.1]. The GWO algorithm flowchart is shown in Figure 4.
 Start

Initialization, Determination of the number

of wolves

Calculation of the fitness value of the

wolves

Identification of alpha, beta and delta wolves

Updating the position of wolves

No
Verified?

Yes

Exporting results

End

Figure 4. GWO algorithm

In the present study, GWO [70] was employed for estimation of the parameters of Eq.1 to 8. The
population number was selected to be 500 and the iteration number was determined to be 1000
according to different trial and error processes to reduce the cost function value. The cost function
was defined as the mean square error between the target and estimated values according to Eq. 14.

Machine learning (ML)

ML is regarded as a subset of AI. Using ML techniques, the computer learns to use patterns or
“training samples” in data (processed information) to predict or make intelligent decisions without
overt planning [71,72]. In other words, ML is the scientific study of algorithms and statistical models
used by computer systems that use patterns and inference to perform tasks instead of using explicit
instructions [73,74].
Time-series are data sequences collected over a period of time [75], which can be used as inputs to
ML algorithms. This type of data reflects the changes that a phenomenon has undergone over time. Let
Xt be a time-series vector, in which xt is the outbreak at time point t and T is the set of all equidistant
time points. To train ML methods effectively, we defined two scenarios, listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Input and output variables for training ML methods by time-series data

Inputs Input number Output

Scenario 1 xt-1, xt-7, xt-14, and xt-21 Four inputs xt (outbreak)

Scenario 2 xt-1, xt-2, xt-3, xt-4, and xt-5 Five inputs xt (outbreak)
 As can be seen in Table 3, scenario 1 employs data for three weeks to predict the outbreak on day
t and scenario 2 employs outbreak data for five days to predict the outbreak for day t. Both of these
scenarios were employed for fitting the ML methods. In the present research, two frequently used ML
methods, the multi-layered perceptron (MLP) and adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system
(ANFIS) are employed for the prediction of the outbreak in the five countries.

Multi-layered perceptron (MLP)

ANN is an idea inspired by the biological nervous system, which processes information like the
brain. The key element of this idea is the new structure of the information processing system [76-78].
The system is made up of several highly interconnected processing elements called neurons that work
together to solve a problem [78,79]. ANNs, like humans, learn by example. The neural network is set
up during a learning process to perform specific tasks, such as identifying patterns and categorizing
information. In biological systems, learning is regulated by the synaptic connections between nerves.
This method is also used in neural networks [80]. By processing experimental data, ANNs transfer
knowledge or a law behind the data to the network structure, which is called learning. Basically,
learning ability is the most important feature of such a smart system. A learning system is more flexible
and easier to plan, so it can better respond to new issues and changes in processes [81].
In ANNs, with the help of programming knowledge, a data structure is designed that can act like
a neuron. This data structure is called a node [82,83]. In this structure, the network between these nodes
is trained by applying an educational algorithm to it. In this memory or neural network, the nodes have
two active states (on or off) and one inactive state (off or 0), and each edge (synapse or connection
between nodes) has a weight. Positive weights stimulate or activate the next inactive node, and negative
weights inactivate or inhibit the next connected node (if active) [78,84]. In the ANN architecture, for the
neural cell c, the input bp enters the cell from the previous cell p. wpc is the weight of the input bp with
respect to cell c and ac is the sum of the multiplications of the inputs and their weights [85]:

𝑎𝑐 = ∑ 𝑤𝑝𝑐 𝑏𝑝𝑐 (19)

A non-linear function Өc is applied to ac. Accordingly, bc can be calculated as Eq. 20 [85]:

𝑏𝑐 = 𝜃𝑐 (𝑎𝑐 ) (20)

Similarly, wcn is the weight of the bcn which is the output of c to n. W is the collection of all the
weights of the neural network in a set. For input x and output y, hw(x) is the output of the neural
network. The main goal is to learn these weights for reducing the error values between y and hw(x). That
is, the goal is to minimize the cost function Q(W), Eq. 21 [85]:
𝑛
1
𝑄(𝑊) = ∑(𝑦𝑖 − 𝑜𝑖 )2 (21)
2
𝑖=1

In the present research, one of the frequently used types of ANN called the MLP [76] was
employed to predict the outbreak. MLP was trained using a dataset related to both scenarios (according
to Table 2). For the training of the network, 8, 12, and 16 inner neurons were tried to achieve the best
response. Results were evaluated by RMSE and correlation coefficient to reduce the cost function value.
Figure 5 presents the architecture of the MLP.
 xt-1
Weights
xt-2
xt-3
xt-4
xt-5
Scenario 2
Outbreak
xt
xt-1
xt-7 bias

xt-14
xt-21
Scenario 1

Figure 5. Architecture of MLP

Adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system (ANFIS)

An adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system is a type of ANN based on the Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy
system [86]. This approach was developed in the early 1990s. Since this system integrates the concepts
of neural networks and fuzzy logic, it can take advantage of both capabilities in a unified framework.
This technique is one of the most frequently used and robust hybrid ML techniques. It is consistent with
a set of fuzzy if-then rules that can be learned to approximate nonlinear functions [87,88]. Hence, ANFIS
was proposed as a universal estimator. An important element of fuzzy systems is the fuzzy partition of
the input space [89,90]. For input k, the fuzzy rules in the input space make a k faces fuzzy cube.
Achieving a flexible partition for nonlinear inversion is non-trivial. The idea of this model is to build a
neural network whose outputs are a degree of the input that belongs to each class [91-93]. The
membership functions (MFs) of this model can be nonlinear, multidimensional and, thus, different to
conventional fuzzy systems [94-96]. In ANFIS, neural networks are used to increase the efficiency of
fuzzy systems. The method used to design neural networks is to employ fuzzy systems or fuzzy-based
structures. This model is a kind of division and conquest method. Instead of using one neural network
for all the input and output data, several networks are created in this model:
• A fuzzy separator to cluster input-output data within multiple classes.
• A neural network for each class.
• Training neural networks with output input data in the corresponding classes.
Figure 6 presents a simple architecture for ANFIS.
 Input MFs
Rules Output MF
Input 1

Input 2
Output

Input n
Output
Inputs
Figure 6. ANFIS architecture

In the present study, ANFIS is developed to tackle two scenarios described in table 3. Each input
included by two MFs with the Tri. shape; Trap. shape and Gauss. shape MFs. The output MF type
was selected to be linear with a hybrid optimizer type.

Evaluation criteria
Evaluation was conducted using the root mean square error (RMSE) and correlation coefficient.
These statistics compare the target and output values and calculate a score as an index for the
performance and accuracy of the developed methods [87,97]. Table 4 presents the evaluation criteria
equations.

Table 4. Model Evaluation metrics

Accuracy and Performance Index

𝑁 ∑ (𝐴𝑃) −∑ (𝐴) ∑ (𝑃)
Correlation coefficient= (22)
√[𝑁 ∑ 𝐴2 −(∑ 𝐴) 2 ][𝑁 ∑ 𝑃2 −(∑ 𝐴𝑃) 2 ]

1
RMSE= √ ∑ (𝐴 − 𝑃)2 (23)
𝑁

Where, N is the number of data, P and A are, respectively, the predicted (output) and desired (target)
values.

3. Results
Tables 5 to 12 present the results of the accuracy statistics for the logistic, linear, logarithmic,
quadratic, cubic, compound, power and exponential equations, respectively. The coefficients of each
equation were calculated by the three ML optimizers; GA, PSO and GWO. The table contains country
name, model name, population size, number of iterations, processing time, RMSE and correlation
coefficient.

Table 5. Accuracy statistics for the logistic model

Country Model Pop. size iteration Processing time RMSE Correlation coefficient
GA 300 500 82 s 1028.98 0.996
Italy
PSO 1000 500 36 s 3358.1 0.997
 GWO 500 1000 14 s 187.15 0.999
GA 300 500 79 s 42160.4 0.982
China PSO 1000 500 35 s 2524.44 0.994
GWO 500 1000 13 s 2270.58 0.995
GA 300 500 81 s 1267.04 0.992
Iran PSO 1000 500 36 s 628.62 0.997
GWO 500 1000 13 s 392.88 0.996
GA 300 500 82 s 1028.98 0.999
USA PSO 1000 500 38 s 350.33 0.999
GWO 500 1000 15 s 22.35 0.999
GA 300 500 86 s 5339.5 0.983
Germany PSO 1000 500 39 s 555.32 0.997
GWO 500 1000 16 s 55.54 0.999

Table 6. Accuracy statistics for the linear model

Country Model Pop. size iteration Processing time RMSE Correlation coefficient
GA 300 500 92 s 3774.06 0.845
Italy PSO 1000 500 42 s 3645.76 0.844
GWO 500 1000 16 s 3642.44 0.844
GA 300 500 91 s 7188.95 0.981
China PSO 1000 500 39s 6644.16 0.982
GWO 500 1000 14 s 5039.48 0.982
GA 300 500 96 s 3330.45 0.943
Iran PSO 1000 500 45 s 2072.71 0.944
GWO 500 1000 18 s 1981.97 0.944
GA 300 500 88 s 850.22 0.745
USA PSO 1000 500 40 s 596.69 0.746
GWO 500 1000 17 s 592.48 0.746
GA 300 500 93 s 1118.77 0.758
Germany PSO 1000 500 47 s 964.46 0.759
GWO 500 1000 20 s 951.63 0.759

Table 7. Accuracy statistics for the logarithmic model

Processing
Model Pop. size iteration RMSE Correlation coefficient
time
GA 300 500 98 s 8325.33 0.634
Italy PSO 1000 500 51 s 8818.2 0.634
GWO 500 1000 20 s 9296.59 0.634
GA 300 500 96 s 40828.2 0.847
China PSO 1000 500 42 s 43835.37 0.847
GWO 500 1000 17 s 42714.93 0.847
GA 300 500 102 s 4929.97 0.757
Iran PSO 1000 500 59 s 8775.56 0.757
GWO 500 1000 22 s 8995.52 0.756
GA 300 500 94 s 889.15 0.538
USA PSO 1000 500 37 s 1130.33 0.538
GWO 500 1000 15 s 1135.12 0.538
GA 300 500 95 s 1552.22 0.548
Germa PSO 1000 500 45 s 1966.81 0.548
ny GWO 500 1000 21 s 1878.67 0.548

Table 8. Accuracy statistics for the quadratic model

Model Pop. size iteration Processing time RMSE Correlation coefficient

GA 300 500 102 s 6710.01 0.976
Italy PSO 1000 500 54 s 5102.4 0.953
GWO 500 1000 26 s 1272.1 0.982
GA 300 500 100 s 7921.33 0.992
China PSO 1000 500 46 s 4328.71 0.993
GWO 500 1000 20 s 3710.16 0.993
GA 300 500 105 s 6771.74 0.995
Iran PSO 1000 500 62 s 822.09 0.998
GWO 500 1000 24 s 310.02 0.998
GA 300 500 98 s 754.6 0.931
USA PSO 1000 500 38 s 791.92 0.853
GWO 500 1000 19 s 307.58 0.938
GA 300 500 101 s 7577 0.904
Germany PSO 1000 500 49 s 752.95 0.923
GWO 500 1000 26 s 472.62 0.946

Table 9. Accuracy statistics for the cubic model

Model Pop. size iteration Processing time RMSE Correlation coefficient

GA 300 500 112 s 7973.11 0.993
Italy PSO 1000 500 61 s 4827.08 0.996
GWO 500 1000 34 s 324.33 0.998
GA 300 500 113 s 15697.84 0.971
China PSO 1000 500 59 s 3611.15 0.995
GWO 500 1000 34 s 2429.45 0.995
GA 300 500 120 s 5852.66 0.995
Iran PSO 1000 500 88 s 3809.76 0.997
GWO 500 1000 39 s 250.2 0.999
GA 300 500 110 s 37766.56 0.875
USA PSO 1000 500 49 s 678.36 0.979
GWO 500 1000 25 s 118.24 0.991
GA 300 500 116 s 1709.06 0.744
Germany PSO 1000 500 59 s 1812.78 0.967
GWO 500 1000 29 s 196.8 0.99

Table 10. Accuracy statistics for the compound model

Pop. Processing Correlation

Model iteration RMSE
size time coefficient
GA 300 500 92 s 8347.51 0.912
Italy PSO 1000 500 53 s 195705.52 0.918
GWO 500 1000 22 s 12585.79 0.951
 GA 300 500 90 s 41544.05 0.986
China PSO 1000 500 48 s 40195.9 0.988
GWO 500 1000 23 s 24987.34 0.895
GA 300 500 99 s 1487501.93 0.782
Iran PSO 1000 500 81 s 8216.81 0.986
GWO 500 1000 26 s 13635.01 0.864
GA 300 500 96 s 655.62 0.994
USA PSO 1000 500 32 s 1026.03 0.827
GWO 500 1000 16 s 364.87 0.988
GA 300 500 98 s 15333537.7 0.93
Germany PSO 1000 500 72 s 1557.23 0.976
GWO 500 1000 20 s 431.97 0.998

Table 11. Accuracy statistics for the power model

Pop. Processing Correlation

Model iteration RMSE
size time coefficient
GA 300 500 72 s 7063.4 0.983
Italy PSO 1000 500 40 s 6150.52 0.982
GWO 500 1000 13 s 3450.96 0.991
GA 300 500 65 s 39669.92 0.976
China PSO 1000 500 39 s 19365.58 0.987
GWO 500 1000 12 s 4078.99 0.989
GA 300 500 83 s 2343032.5 0.951
Iran PSO 1000 500 65 s 92755.53 0.975
GWO 500 1000 15 s 1031.6 0.991
GA 300 500 79 s 1030.01 0.779
USA PSO 1000 500 24 s 1005.27 0.751
GWO 500 1000 11 s 790.16 0.837
GA 300 500 85 s 1475.39 0.871
Germany PSO 1000 500 69 s 1387.94 0.916
GWO 500 1000 14 s 1341.91 0.875

Table 12. Accuracy statistics for the exponential model

Pop. Processing Correlation

Model iteration RMSE
size time coefficient
GA 300 500 79 s 8163.1 0.995
Italy PSO 1000 500 48 s 52075925.37 0.839
GWO 500 1000 18 s 12585.79 0.951
GA 300 500 71 s 68991.73 0.866
China PSO 1000 500 45 s 80104.27 0.865
GWO 500 1000 17 s 24987.34 0.895
GA 300 500 89 s 1436025.84 0.767
Iran PSO 1000 500 70 s 3745673.26 0.744
GWO 500 1000 21 s 13635.01 0.864
GA 300 500 84 s 457051.4 0.974
USA
PSO 1000 500 30 s 982.37 0.932
 GWO 500 1000 15 s 364.87 0.988
GA 300 500 87 s 8176.54 0.981
Germany PSO 1000 500 74 s 3278.55 0.998
GWO 500 1000 19 s 431.97 0.998

According to Tables 5 to 12, GWO provided the highest accuracy (smallest RMSE and largest
correlation coefficient) and smallest processing time compared to PSO and GA for fitting the logistic,
linear, logarithmic, quadratic, cubic, power, compound, and exponential-based equations for all five
countries. It can be suggested that GWO is a sustainable optimizer due to its acceptable processing
time compared with PSO and GA. Therefore, GWO was selected as the best optimizer by providing
the highest accuracy values compared with PSO and GA. In general, it can be claimed that GWO, by
suggesting the best parameter values for the functions presented in Table 2, increases outbreak
prediction accuracy for COVID-19 in comparison with PSO and GA. Therefore, the functions derived
by GWO were selected as the best predictors for this research.
Tables 13 to 17 present the description and coefficients of the linear, logarithmic, quadratic,
cubic, compound, power, exponential and logistic equations estimated by GWO. Tables 13 to 17 also
present the RMSE and r-square values for each equation fitted to data for China, Italy, Iran, Germany
and USA, respectively.

Table 13. Model description for China fitted by GWO

Model Description RMSE r-

name square
Linear R = 3036,4 × x − 13509,84 5039.48 0.964

Logarithmic R = −33948,15 + 27124,70 × log(x) 42714.93 0.718

Quadratic R = −5080,88 + 1455,98 × x + 50,98 × x 2 3710.16 0.98

Cubic R = 3984,73 − 1790,2 × x + 308,52 × x 2 − 5,53 × x 3 2429.45 0.99

Compound R = 1601,03 × 1.16x 24987.34 0.801

Power R = 262,27 × x1,69 4078.99 0.98

Exponential R = 1601,03 × EXP(0,15 × x) 24987.34 0.801

Logistic R = 85011,297/(1 + EXP(((4 × 4483,304) ∗ (9,423 2270.58 0.992

− x)/85011,297) + 2))

Table 14. Model description for Italy fitted by GWO

Model name Description RMSE r-

square
Linear R = 663,71 × x − 5437,25 3642.44 0.713

Logarithmic R = −7997,93 + 5162,83 × log(x) 9296.59 0.402

Quadratic R = 2998,21 − 917,93 × x + 51,02 × x 2 1272.1 0.965

 Cubic R = −978,55 + 506,05 × B2 − 61,95 × x 2 324.33 0.997
+ 2,42 × x 3
Compound R = 2,78 × 1,406x 12585.79 0.904

Power R = 0,096 × x 3,476 3450.96 0.984

Exponential R = 2,786 × EXP(0,341 × x) 12585.79 0.904

Logistic R = 70731,084/(1 187.15 0.999

+ EXP(((4 × 3962,88)
× (23,88 − x)/70731,08)
+ 2))

Table 15. Model description for Iran fitted by GWO

Model Description RMSE r-square

name
Linear R = 656,068 × x − 4527,69 1981.97 0.891

Logarithmic R = −7921,009 + 5449,784 × log(x) 8995.52 0.574

Quadratic R = 310,48 − 251,09 × x + 29,26 × x 2 310.027 0.997

Cubic R = 902,33 − 463,02 × x + 46,07 × x 2 250.204 0.998

− 0,36 × x 3
Compound R = 13,26 × 1,33x 13635.014 0.748

Power R = 0,51 × x 3,09 1031.607 0.982

Exponential R = 13,26 × EXP(0,28 × x) 13635.014 0.748

Logistic R = 21936,052/(1 + EXP(((4 392.88 0.996

∗ 1255,36) × (14,66
− x)/21936,052) + 2))

Table 16. Model description for Germany fitted by GWO

Model Description RMSE r-

name square

Linear R = 128,421 × x − 1130,294 951.635 0.577

Logarithmic R = −1528,684 + 959,941 × log(x) 1878.672 0.3
Quadratic R = 911,113 − 254,342 × x + 12,347 × x 2 472.624 0.895
Cubic R = −478,087 + 243,097 × x − 27,118 × x 2 + 0,848 × x 3 196.809 0.981
Compound R = 3,821 × 1,263x 431.975 0.996
 Power R = 0,937x 2,021 1341.911 0.766
Exponential R = 3,821 × EXP(0,233 × x) 431.975 0.996
Logistic R = 55179,669/(1 + EXP(((4 × 3740,457) × (30,49 55.546 0.998
− x)/55179,669) + 2))

Table 17. Model description for USA fitted by GWO

Model Description RMSE r-square

name
Linear R = 76,833 × x − 666,79 592.486 0.557

Logarithmic R = −902,637 + 573,32 × log(x) 1135.124 0.289

Quadratic R = 584,76 − 157,831 × x + 7,569 × x 2 307.585 0.88

Cubic R = −333,235 + 170,881 × x − 18,509 × x 2 + 0,56 × x 3 118.247 0.982

Compound R = 6,296 × 1,214x 364.875 0.977

Power R = 1,707 × x1,735 790.163 0.702

Exponential R = 6,296 × EXP(0,194 × x) 364.875 0.977

Logistic R = 32604,552/(1 + EXP(((4 × 2288,932) × (30,303 22.354 0.999

− x)/32604,552) + 2))

As is clear from Tables 13 to 17, in general, the logistic equation followed by the quadratic and
cubic equations provided the smallest RMSE and the largest r-square values for the prediction of
COVID-19 outbreak. The claim can also be considered from Figure 7 to 11, which presents the
capability and trend of each model derived by GWO in the prediction of COVID-19 cases for China,
Italy, Iran, Germany, and the USA, respectively.
Figure 7. Fitness graph for China fitted by GWO

Figure 8. Set of models for Italy fitted by GWO

 Figure 9. Set of models for Iran fitted by GWO

Figure 10. Set of models for Germany fitted by GWO

 Figure 11. Set of models for USA fitted by GWO

Figures 7 to 11 illustrate the fit of the models investigated in this paper. The best fit for the
prediction of COVID-19 cases was achieved for the logistic model followed by cubic and quadratic
models for China (Figure 7), logistic followed by cubic models for Italy (Figure 8), cubic followed by
logistic and quadratic models for Iran (Figure 9), the logistic model for Germany (Figure 10), and
logistic model for the USA (Figure 11).

Machine learning results

This section presents the results for the training stage of ML methods. MLP and ANFIS were
employed as single and hybrid ML methods, respectively. ML methods were trained using two
datasets related to scenario 1 and scenario 2. Table 14 presents the results of the training phase.

Table 18. Results for the training phase of the ML methods

Scenario 1 Scenario2

MLP ANFIS MLP ANFIS

No. of MF No. of MF
r RMSE r RMSE r RMSE r RMSE
neurons type neurons type

8 0.999 190.81 Tri. 0.999 189.76 8 0.999 199.52 Tri. 0.999 188.55
0
Italy 12 0.999 194.84 Trap. 3743.63 12 0.999 195.79 Trap. 0.876 3276
.841

16 0.999 188.18 Gauss 0.998 320.93 16 0.999 195.2 Gauss 0.999 206.66

Average 0.999 191.27 0.946 1418.1 Average 0.999 196.83 0.958 1223.73

China 8 0.995 2287.55 Tri. 0.996 2293.09 8 0.996 2265.95 Tri. 0.996 2272.13
 12 0.996 2259.95 Trap. 0.987 4231.05 12 0.996 2285.73 Trap. 0.989 3835.34

16 0.995 2407.16 Gauss 0.996 2358.3 16 0.996 2260.05 Gauss 0.996 2272.58

Average 0.995 2318.22 0.993 2960.81 Average 0.996 2270.57 0.993 2793.35

8 0.998 392.17 Tri. 0.998 395.33 8 0.998 404.21 Tri. 0.998 394.04

Iran 12 0.998 391.04 Trap. 0.977 1282.33 12 0.998 392.77 Trap. 0.986 994

16 0.998 392.19 Gauss 0.998 396.51 16 0.998 395.43 Gauss 0.998 391.96

Average 0.998 391.8 0.991 391.39 Average 0.998 397.47 0.994 593.33

8 0.999 55.6 Tri. 0.999 56.25 8 0.999 55.58 Tri. 0.999 55.63

Germany 12 0.999 55.38 Trap. 0.12 1658.7 12 0.999 55.56 Trap. 0.13 1537.26

16 0.999 55.58 Gauss 0.998 154.99 16 0.999 55.56 Gauss 0.999 62.91

Average 0.999 55.52 0.705 623.31 Average 0.999 55.56 0.709 551.93

8 0.999 21.65 Tri. 0.999 21.75 8 0.999 22.31 Tri. 0.999 22.52

USA 12 0.999 22.36 Trap. 0.22 861.08 12 0.999 22.3 Trap. 0.2 935.41

16 0.999 22.31 Gauss 0.998 86.32 16 0.999 22.4 Gauss 0.999 25.03

Average 0.999 22.1 0.739 323.05 Average 0.999 22.33 0.739 327.65

According to Table 18, the dataset related to scenarios 1 and 2 have different performance values.
Accordingly, for Italy, the MLP with 16 neurons provided the highest accuracy for scenario 1 and
ANFIS with tri. MF provided the highest accuracy for scenario 2. By considering the average values
of the RMSE and correlation coefficient, it can be concluded that scenario 1 is more suitable for
modeling outbreak cases in Italy, as it provides a higher accuracy (the smallest RMSE and the largest
correlation coefficient) than scenario 2.
For the dataset related to China, for both scenarios, MLP with 12 and 16 neurons, respectively
for scenarios 1 and 2, provided the highest accuracy compared with the ANFIS model. By considering
the average values of RMSE and correlation coefficient, it can be concluded that scenario 2 with a
larger average correlation coefficient and smaller average RMSE than scenario 1 is more suitable for
modeling the outbreak in China.
For the dataset of Iran, MLP with 12 neurons in the hidden layer for scenario 1 and ANFIS with
Gaussian MF type for scenario 2 provided the best performance for the prediction of the outbreak.
By considering the average values of the RMSE and correlation coefficient, it can be concluded that
scenario 1 provided better performance than scenario 2. Also, in general, the MLP has higher
prediction accuracy compared with the ANFIS method.
In Germany, MLP with 12 neurons in its hidden layer provided the highest accuracy (smallest
RMSE and largest correlation coefficient). By considering the average values of the RMSE and
correlation coefficient, it can be concluded that scenario 1 is more suitable for the prediction of the
outbreak in Germany than scenario 2.
In the USA, the MLP with 8 and 12 neurons, respectively, for scenarios 1 and 2, provided higher
accuracy (the smallest RMSE and the largest correlation coefficient values) than the ANFIS model. By
considering the average values of the RMSE and correlation coefficient values, it can be concluded
that scenario 1 is more suitable than scenario 2, and MLP is more suitable than ANFIS for outbreak
prediction.
Figures 12 to 16 present the model fits for Italy, China, Iran, Germany, and the USA, respectively.
By comparing Figure 12 to 16 with Figures 7 to 11, it can be concluded that the MLP and the logistic
model fitted by GWO provided a better fit than the other models. In addition, the ML methods
provided better performance compared with other models.
Figure 12. Set of models for Italy fitted by ML methods

Figure 13. Set of models for China fitted by ML methods

 Figure 14. Set of models for Iran fitted by ML methods

Figure 15. Set of models for Germany fitted by ML methods

 Figure 16. Set of models for USA fitted by ML methods

Comparing the fitted models

This section presents a comparison of the accuracy and performance of the selected models for
the prediction of 30 days’ outbreak. Figure 17 to 21 shows the deviation from the target values for the
selected models.

Figure 17. Deviation from target value for models related to Italy
 Figure 18. Deviation from target value for models related to China

Figure 19. Deviation from target value for models related to Iran

Figure 20. Deviation from target value for models related to Germany
 Figure 21. Deviation from target value for models related to USA

As is clear from Figure 17 to 21, the smallest deviation from the target values is related to the
MLP for scenario 1 followed by MLP for scenario 2. This indicates the highest performance of the
MLP method for the prediction of the outbreak.
Figures 22 to 26 present the outbreak prediction for 75 days and Tables 19 to 23 present the
outbreak prediction for 150 days.

Figure 22. The outbreak prediction for Italy through 75 days

 Table 19. The outbreak prediction for Italy through 150 days

Logistic Linear by Logarithmic Quadratic Power by

MLP ANFIS
by GWO GWO by GWO by GWO GWO
Day
3794.045 7837.054 -1280.93 5047.906 3225.523 3792.734 3796.738
20th
Day
58966.55 21111.37 273.235 47914.4 35898.08 58966.74 58964.96
40th
Day
70571.86 34385.68 1182.365 131597.7 146966.2 70571.66 70572.12
60th
Day
70729.28 47659.99 1827.402 256097.8 399523.4 70729.27 70729.15
80th
Day
70731.06 60934.31 2327.733 421414.7 867822 70731.09 70730.93
100th
Day
70731.08 74208.62 2736.532 627548.4 1635643 70731.14 70730.87
120th
Day
70731.08 87482.94 3082.167 874498.9 2795218 70731.19 70730.79
140th
Day
70731.08 94120.09 3236.862 1013280 3552851 70731.21 70730.75
150th

Figure 23. The outbreak prediction for China through 75 days

Table 20. The outbreak prediction for China through 150 days

Logistic Linear by Logarithmic Quadratic Power by

MLP ANFIS
by GWO GWO by GWO by GWO GWO
 Day
47397.6 47218.47 1341.899 44431.48 41916.55 47397.6 47360.98
20th
Day
84030.16 107946.8 9507.249 134729.1 135599.1 84030.17 84030.39
40th
Day
84996.7 168675.1 14283.67 265812 269471.3 84996.7 84996.67
60th
Day
85011.08 229403.4 17672.6 437680.2 438660.2 85011.08 85011.05
80th
Day
85011.29 290131.7 20301.26 650333.6 640132.8 85011.3 85011.22
100th
Day
85011.3 350860 22449.02 903772.3 871733.6 85011.34 85011.13
120th
Day
85011.3 411588.3 24264.94 1197996 1131815 85011.38 85011.05
140th
Day
85011.3 441952.5 25077.68 1360403 1272113 85011.41 85011.01
150th

Figure 24. The outbreak prediction for Iran through 75 days

Table 21. The outbreak prediction for Iran through 150 days

Linear by Logarithmic Quadratic Power by

Logistic by GWO MLP ANFIS
GWO by GWO by GWO GWO

Day 20th 6898.344 8593.676 -830.677 6993.955 5494.377 6902.315 6875.585

Day 40th 21455.58 21715.05 809.8719 37087.98 47060.48 21457.4 21456.65

Day 60th 21931.01 34836.43 1769.531 90592.56 165300.1 21932.24 21930.68

Day 80th 21936 47957.8 2450.42 167507.7 403082.8 21935.1 21935.54

Day 100th 21936.05 61079.18 2978.559 267833.4 804764.4 21935.11 21935.6

Day 120th 21936.05 74200.55 3410.08 391569.6 1415829 21935.12 21935.63

Day 140th 21936.05 87321.93 3774.925 538716.4 2282679 21935.13 21935.65

Day 150th 21936.05 93882.61 3938.219 621068.7 2826737 21935.13 21935.67

Figure 25. The outbreak prediction for Germany through 75 days

Table 22. The outbreak prediction for Germany through 150 days

Logistic by Linear by Logarithmic by Quadratic by Power by MLP ANFIS

GWO GWO GWO GWO GWO
Day
20th 431.027 1438.128 -279.772 763.1467 400.0548 432.8991 431.8119
Day
40th 35356.27 4006.551 9.199328 10492.96 1624.405 35355.14 35355.72
Day
60th 55043.44 6574.974 178.2366 30100.56 3687.126 55036.14 55044.03
Day
80th 55179.07 9143.397 298.1705 59585.93 6595.829 55179.05 55178.88
Day
100th 55179.67 11711.82 391.1984 98949.09 10355.87 55179.9 55179.47
Day
120th 55179.67 14280.24 467.2078 148190 14971.42 55179.92 55179.42
 Day
140th 55179.67 16848.66 531.4728 207308.7 20445.86 55179.94 55179.37
Day
150th 55179.67 18132.88 560.2357 240572.3 23506.09 55179.96 55179.35

Figure 26. The outbreak prediction for the USA through 75 days

Table 23. The outbreak prediction for the USA for 150 days

Logistic by Linear by Logarithmic by Quadratic by Power by MLP ANFIS

GWO GWO GWO GWO GWO
Day
242.6091 869.8855 -156.73 456.0663 309.616 244.0038 243.6504
20th
Day
21951.15 2406.562 15.85698 6383.264 1031.324 21942.25 21948.25
40th
Day
32547.08 3943.238 116.8138 18366.35 2084.876 32552.6 32548.47
60th
Day
32604.34 5479.914 188.4437 36405.33 3435.319 32606.19 32604.47
80th
Day
32604.55 7016.591 244.0043 60500.21 5060.548 32606.63 32604.72
100th
Day
32604.55 8553.267 289.4005 90650.97 6944.676 32606.7 32604.76
120th
Day
32604.55 10089.94 327.7825 126857.6 9075.446 32606.78 32604.8
140th
Day
32604.55 10858.28 344.9611 147231.9 10230.16 32606.81 32604.82
150th
4. Discussion
The parameters of several simple mathematical models (i.e., logistic, linear, logarithmic,
quadratic, cubic, compound, power and exponential) were fitted using GA, PSO, and GWO. The
logistic model outperformed other methods and showed promising results on training for 30 days.
Extrapolation of the prediction beyond the original observation range of 30-days should not be
expected to be realistic considering the new statistics. The fitted models generally showed low
accuracy and also weak generalization ability for the five countries. Although the prediction for
China was promising, the model was insufficient for extrapolation, as expected. In turn, the logistic
GWO outperformed the PSO and GA and the computational cost for GWO was reported as
satisfactory. Consequently, for further assessment of the ML models, the logistic model fitted with
GWO was used for comparative analysis.
In the next step, for introducing the machine learning methods for time-series prediction, two
scenarios were proposed. Scenario 1 considered four data samples from the progress of the infection
from previous days, as reported in table 3. The sampling for data processing was done weekly for
scenario 1. However, scenario 2 was devoted to daily sampling for all previous consecutive days.
Providing these two scenarios expanded the scope of this study. Training and test results for the two
machine learning models (MLP and ANFIS) were considered for the two scenarios. A detailed
investigation was also carried out to explore the most suitable number of neurons. For the MLP, the
performances of using 8, 12 and 16 neurons were analyzed throughout the study. For the ANFIS, the
membership function (MF) types of Tri, Trap, and Gauss were analyzed throughout the study. The
five counties of Italy, China, Iran, Germany, and USA were considered. The performance of both ML
models for these countries varied amongst the two different scenarios. Given the observed results, it
is not possible to select the most suitable scenario. Therefore, both daily and weekly sampling can be
used in machine learning modeling. Comparison between analytical and machine learning models
using the deviation from the target value (figures 17 to 21) indicated that the MLP in both scenarios
delivered the most accurate results. Extrapolation for long-term prediction of up to 150 days using
the ML models was tested. The actual prediction of MLP and ANFIS for the five countries was
reported which showed the progression of the outbreak.

5. Conclusions
The global pandemic of the severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has
become the primary national security issue of many nations. Advancement of accurate prediction
models for the outbreak is essential to provide insights into the spread and consequences of this
infectious disease. Due to the high level of uncertainty and lack of crucial data, standard
epidemiological models have shown low accuracy for long-term prediction. This paper presents a
comparative analysis of ML and soft computing models to predict the COVID-19 outbreak. The
results of two ML models (MLP and ANFIS) reported a high generalization ability for long-term
prediction. With respect to the results reported in this paper and due to the highly complex nature of
the COVID-19 outbreak and differences from nation-to-nation, this study suggests ML as an effective
tool to model the outbreak.
For the advancement of higher performance models for long-term prediction, future research
should be devoted to comparative studies on various ML models for individual countries. Due to the
fundamental differences between the outbreak in various countries, advancement of global models
with generalization ability would not be feasible. As observed and reported in many studies, it is
unlikely that an individual outbreak will be replicated elsewhere [1].
Although the most difficult prediction is to estimate the maximum number of infected patients,
estimation of the n(deaths) / n(infecteds) is also essential. The mortality rate is particularly important
to accurately estimate the number of patients and the required beds in intensive care units. For future
research, modeling the mortality rate would be of the utmost importance for nations to plan for new
facilities.
 Nomenclatures
Multi-layered perceptron MLP Grey wolf optimization GWO
Adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system ANFIS Mean square error MSE
Susceptible-infected-recovered SIR Root mean square error RMSE
Call data record CDR Artificial intelligence AI
Classification and regression tree CART Artificial neural network ANN
Evolutionary algorithms EA Triangular Tri.
Genetic algorithm GA Gaussian Gauss.
Particle swarm optimization PSO Trapezoidal Trap.
Membership function MF Machine learning ML

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Remuzzi, A.; Remuzzi, G. COVID-19 and Italy: what next? Lancet 2020.
2. Ivanov, D. Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: A simulation-based
analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) case. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp.
Rev. 2020, 136, doi:10.1016/j.tre.2020.101922.
3. Koolhof, I.S.; Gibney, K.B.; Bettiol, S.; Charleston, M.; Wiethoelter, A.; Arnold, A.L.; Campbell, P.T.;
Neville, P.J.; Aung, P.; Shiga, T., et al. The forecasting of dynamical Ross River virus outbreaks: Victoria,
Australia. Epidemics 2020, 30, doi:10.1016/j.epidem.2019.100377.
4. Darwish, A.; Rahhal, Y.; Jafar, A. A comparative study on predicting influenza outbreaks using
different feature spaces: application of influenza-like illness data from Early Warning Alert and
Response System in Syria. BMC Res. Notes 2020, 13, 33, doi:10.1186/s13104-020-4889-5.
5. Rypdal, M.; Sugihara, G. Inter-outbreak stability reflects the size of the susceptible pool and forecasts
magnitudes of seasonal epidemics. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10099-y.
6. Scarpino, S.V.; Petri, G. On the predictability of infectious disease outbreaks. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10,
doi:10.1038/s41467-019-08616-0.
7. Zhan, Z.; Dong, W.; Lu, Y.; Yang, P.; Wang, Q.; Jia, P. Real-Time Forecasting of Hand-Foot-and-Mouth
Disease Outbreaks using the Integrating Compartment Model and Assimilation Filtering. Sci. Rep. 2019,
9, doi:10.1038/s41598-019-38930-y.
8. Koike, F.; Morimoto, N. Supervised forecasting of the range expansion of novel non-indigenous
organisms: Alien pest organisms and the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 2018, 27, 991-
1000, doi:10.1111/geb.12754.
9. Dallas, T.A.; Carlson, C.J.; Poisot, T. Testing predictability of disease outbreaks with a simple model of
pathogen biogeography. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2019, 6, doi:10.1098/rsos.190883.
10. de Groot, M.; Ogris, N. Short-term forecasting of bark beetle outbreaks on two economically important
conifer tree species. For. Ecol. Manage. 2019, 450, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117495.
11. Kelly, J.D.; Park, J.; Harrigan, R.J.; Hoff, N.A.; Lee, S.D.; Wannier, R.; Selo, B.; Mossoko, M.; Njoloko, B.;
Okitolonda-Wemakoy, E., et al. Real-time predictions of the 2018–2019 Ebola virus disease outbreak in
 the Democratic Republic of the Congo using Hawkes point process models. Epidemics 2019, 28,
doi:10.1016/j.epidem.2019.100354.
12. Maier, B.F.; Brockmann, D. Effective containment explains sub-exponential growth in confirmed cases
of recent COVID-19 outbreak in Mainland China. medRxiv 2020, 10.1101/2020.02.18.20024414,
2020.2002.2018.20024414, doi:10.1101/2020.02.18.20024414.
13. Pan, J.R.; Huang, Z.Q.; Chen, K. [Evaluation of the effect of varicella outbreak control measures through
a discrete time delay SEIR model]. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2012, 46, 343-347.
14. Zha, W.T.; Pang, F.R.; Zhou, N.; Wu, B.; Liu, Y.; Du, Y.B.; Hong, X.Q.; Lv, Y. Research about the optimal
strategies for prevention and control of varicella outbreak in a school in a central city of China: Based
on an SEIR dynamic model. Epidemiol. Infect. 2020, 10.1017/S0950268819002188,
doi:10.1017/S0950268819002188.
15. Dantas, E.; Tosin, M.; Cunha, A., Jr. Calibration of a SEIR–SEI epidemic model to describe the Zika virus
outbreak in Brazil. Appl. Math. Comput. 2018, 338, 249-259, doi:10.1016/j.amc.2018.06.024.
16. Leonenko, V.N.; Ivanov, S.V. Fitting the SEIR model of seasonal influenza outbreak to the incidence
data for Russian cities. Russ J Numer Anal Math Modell 2016, 31, 267-279, doi:10.1515/rnam-2016-0026.
17. Imran, M.; Usman, M.; Dur-e-Ahmad, M.; Khan, A. Transmission Dynamics of Zika Fever: A SEIR
Based Model. Differ. Equ. Dyn. Syst. 2020, 10.1007/s12591-017-0374-6, doi:10.1007/s12591-017-0374-6.
18. Miranda, G.H.B.; Baetens, J.M.; Bossuyt, N.; Bruno, O.M.; De Baets, B. Real-time prediction of influenza
outbreaks in Belgium. Epidemics 2019, 28, doi:10.1016/j.epidem.2019.04.001.
19. Sinclair, D.R.; Grefenstette, J.J.; Krauland, M.G.; Galloway, D.D.; Frankeny, R.J.; Travis, C.; Burke, D.S.;
Roberts, M.S. Forecasted Size of Measles Outbreaks Associated With Vaccination Exemptions for
Schoolchildren. JAMA Netw Open 2019, 2, e199768, doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9768.
20. Zhao, S.; Musa, S.S.; Fu, H.; He, D.; Qin, J. Simple framework for real-time forecast in a data-limited
situation: The Zika virus (ZIKV) outbreaks in Brazil from 2015 to 2016 as an example. Parasites Vectors
2019, 12, doi:10.1186/s13071-019-3602-9.
21. Fast, S.M.; Kim, L.; Cohn, E.L.; Mekaru, S.R.; Brownstein, J.S.; Markuzon, N. Predicting social response
to infectious disease outbreaks from internet-based news streams. Ann. Oper. Res. 2018, 263, 551-564,
doi:10.1007/s10479-017-2480-9.
22. McCabe, C.M.; Nunn, C.L. Effective network size predicted from simulations of pathogen outbreaks
through social networks provides a novel measure of structure-standardized group size. Front. Vet. Sci.
2018, 5, doi:10.3389/fvets.2018.00071.
23. Bragazzi, N.L.; Mahroum, N. Google trends predicts present and future plague cases during the plague
outbreak in Madagascar: Infodemiological study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019, 21, doi:10.2196/13142.
24. Jain, R.; Sontisirikit, S.; Iamsirithaworn, S.; Prendinger, H. Prediction of dengue outbreaks based on
disease surveillance, meteorological and socio-economic data. BMC Infect. Dis. 2019, 19,
doi:10.1186/s12879-019-3874-x.
25. Kim, T.H.; Hong, K.J.; Shin, S.D.; Park, G.J.; Kim, S.; Hong, N. Forecasting respiratory infectious
outbreaks using ED-based syndromic surveillance for febrile ED visits in a Metropolitan City. Am. J.
Emerg. Med. 2019, 37, 183-188, doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2018.05.007.
26. Zhong, L.; Mu, L.; Li, J.; Wang, J.; Yin, Z.; Liu, D. Early Prediction of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus
Outbreak in the Mainland China Based on Simple Mathematical Model. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 51761-
51769, doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979599.
27. Wu, J.T.; Leung, K.; Leung, G.M. Nowcasting and forecasting the potential domestic and international
spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: a modelling study. Lancet 2020, 395,
689-697, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30260-9.
28. Reis, J.; Yamana, T.; Kandula, S.; Shaman, J. Superensemble forecast of respiratory syncytial virus
outbreaks at national, regional, and state levels in the United States. Epidemics 2019, 26, 1-8,
doi:10.1016/j.epidem.2018.07.001.
29. Burke, R.M.; Shah, M.P.; Wikswo, M.E.; Barclay, L.; Kambhampati, A.; Marsh, Z.; Cannon, J.L.;
Parashar, U.D.; Vinjé, J.; Hall, A.J. The Norovirus Epidemiologic Triad: Predictors of Severe Outcomes
in US Norovirus Outbreaks, 2009-2016. J. Infect. Dis. 2019, 219, 1364-1372, doi:10.1093/infdis/jiy569.
30. Carlson, C.J.; Dougherty, E.; Boots, M.; Getz, W.; Ryan, S.J. Consensus and conflict among ecological
forecasts of Zika virus outbreaks in the United States. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, doi:10.1038/s41598-018-22989-0.
31. Kleiven, E.F.; Henden, J.A.; Ims, R.A.; Yoccoz, N.G. Seasonal difference in temporal transferability of
an ecological model: near-term predictions of lemming outbreak abundances. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8,
doi:10.1038/s41598-018-33443-6.
32. Rivers-Moore, N.A.; Hill, T.R. A predictive management tool for blackfly outbreaks on the Orange
River, South Africa. River Res. Appl. 2018, 34, 1197-1207, doi:10.1002/rra.3357.
33. Yin, R.; Tran, V.H.; Zhou, X.; Zheng, J.; Kwoh, C.K. Predicting antigenic variants of H1N1 influenza
virus based on epidemics and pandemics using a stacking model. PLoS ONE 2018, 13,
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0207777.
34. Agarwal, N.; Koti, S.R.; Saran, S.; Senthil Kumar, A. Data mining techniques for predicting dengue
outbreak in geospatial domain using weather parameters for New Delhi, India. Curr. Sci. 2018, 114,
2281-2291, doi:10.18520/cs/v114/i11/2281-2291.
35. Anno, S.; Hara, T.; Kai, H.; Lee, M.A.; Chang, Y.; Oyoshi, K.; Mizukami, Y.; Tadono, T. Spatiotemporal
dengue fever hotspots associated with climatic factors in taiwan including outbreak predictions based
on machine-learning. Geospatial Health 2019, 14, 183-194, doi:10.4081/gh.2019.771.
36. Chenar, S.S.; Deng, Z. Development of artificial intelligence approach to forecasting oyster norovirus
outbreaks along Gulf of Mexico coast. Environ. Int. 2018, 111, 212-223, doi:10.1016/j.envint.2017.11.032.
37. Chenar, S.S.; Deng, Z. Development of genetic programming-based model for predicting oyster
norovirus outbreak risks. Water Res. 2018, 128, 20-37, doi:10.1016/j.watres.2017.10.032.
38. Iqbal, N.; Islam, M. Machine learning for dengue outbreak prediction: A performance evaluation of
different prominent classifiers. Informatica 2019, 43, 363-371, doi:10.31449/inf.v43i1.1548.
39. Liang, R.; Lu, Y.; Qu, X.; Su, Q.; Li, C.; Xia, S.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Cao, X.; Chen, Q., et al. Prediction for
global African swine fever outbreaks based on a combination of random forest algorithms and
meteorological data. Transboundary Emer. Dis. 2020, 67, 935-946, doi:10.1111/tbed.13424.
40. Mezzatesta, S.; Torino, C.; De Meo, P.; Fiumara, G.; Vilasi, A. A machine learning-based approach for
predicting the outbreak of cardiovascular diseases in patients on dialysis. Comput. Methods Programs
Biomed. 2019, 177, 9-15, doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2019.05.005.
41. Raja, D.B.; Mallol, R.; Ting, C.Y.; Kamaludin, F.; Ahmad, R.; Ismail, S.; Jayaraj, V.J.; Sundram, B.M.
Artificial intelligence model as predictor for dengue outbreaks. Malays. J. Public Health Med. 2019, 19,
103-108.
42. Tapak, L.; Hamidi, O.; Fathian, M.; Karami, M. Comparative evaluation of time series models for
predicting influenza outbreaks: Application of influenza-like illness data from sentinel sites of
healthcare centers in Iran. BMC Res. Notes 2019, 12, doi:10.1186/s13104-019-4393-y.
43. Titus Muurlink, O.; Stephenson, P.; Islam, M.Z.; Taylor-Robinson, A.W. Long-term predictors of
dengue outbreaks in Bangladesh: A data mining approach. Infect. Dis. Modelling 2018, 3, 322-330,
doi:10.1016/j.idm.2018.11.004.
44. Nádai, L., Imre, F., Ardabili, S., Gundoshmian, T.M., Gergo, P. and Mosavi, A., 2020. Performance
Analysis of Combine Harvester using Hybrid Model of Artificial Neural Networks Particle Swarm
Optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.11041.
45. Ardabili, S., Beszédes, B., Nádai, L., Széll, K., Mosavi, A. and Imre, F., 2020. Comparative Analysis of
Single and Hybrid Neuro-Fuzzy-Based Models for an Industrial Heating Ventilation and Air
Conditioning Control System. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.11042.
46. Back, T. Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice: evolution strategies, evolutionary programming, genetic
algorithms; Oxford university press: 1996.
47. Deb, K. Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms; John Wiley & Sons: 2001; Vol. 16.
48. Zitzler, E.; Deb, K.; Thiele, L. Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Empirical results.
Evolutionary computation 2000, 8, 173-195.
49. Ghamisi, P.; Benediktsson, J.A. Feature selection based on hybridization of genetic algorithm and
particle swarm optimization. IEEE Geoscience and remote sensing letters 2014, 12, 309-313.
50. Ardabili, S., Beszédes, B., Nádai, L., Széll, K., Mosavi, A. and Imre, F., 2020. Comparative Analysis of
Single and Hybrid Neuro-Fuzzy-Based Models for an Industrial Heating Ventilation and Air
Conditioning Control System. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.11042.
51. Ardabili, S., Mosavi, A. and Várkonyi-Kóczy, A.R., 2019, September. Advances in machine learning
modeling reviewing hybrid and ensemble methods. In International Conference on Global Research
and Education (pp. 215-227). Springer, Cham.
52. Mühlenbein, H.; Schomisch, M.; Born, J. The parallel genetic algorithm as function optimizer. Parallel
computing 1991, 17, 619-632.
53. Whitley, D. A genetic algorithm tutorial. Statistics and computing 1994, 4, 65-85.
54. Horn, J.; Nafpliotis, N.; Goldberg, D.E. A niched Pareto genetic algorithm for multiobjective
optimization. In Proceedings of Proceedings of the first IEEE conference on evolutionary computation.
IEEE world congress on computational intelligence; pp. 82-87.
55. Reeves, C.R. A genetic algorithm for flowshop sequencing. Computers & operations research 1995, 22, 5-
13.
56. Jones, G.; Willett, P.; Glen, R.C.; Leach, A.R.; Taylor, R. Development and validation of a genetic
algorithm for flexible docking. Journal of molecular biology 1997, 267, 727-748.
57. Ardabili, S.; Mosavi, A.; Varkonyi-Koczy, A.R. Advances in machine learning modeling reviewing
hybrid and ensemble methods. 2019.
58. Houck, C.R.; Joines, J.; Kay, M.G. A genetic algorithm for function optimization: a Matlab
implementation. Ncsu-ie tr 1995, 95, 1-10.
59. Whitley, D.; Starkweather, T.; Bogart, C. Genetic algorithms and neural networks: Optimizing
connections and connectivity. Parallel computing 1990, 14, 347-361.
60. Kennedy, J.; Eberhart, R. Particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of Proceedings of ICNN'95-
International Conference on Neural Networks; pp. 1942-1948.
61. Poli, R.; Kennedy, J.; Blackwell, T. Particle swarm optimization. Swarm intelligence 2007, 1, 33-57.
62. Clerc, M. Particle swarm optimization; John Wiley & Sons: 2010; Vol. 93.
63. Angeline, P.J. Using selection to improve particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of 1998 IEEE
International Conference on Evolutionary Computation Proceedings. IEEE World Congress on
Computational Intelligence (Cat. No. 98TH8360); pp. 84-89.
64. Sun, J.; Feng, B.; Xu, W. Particle swarm optimization with particles having quantum behavior. In
Proceedings of Proceedings of the 2004 congress on evolutionary computation (IEEE Cat. No.
04TH8753); pp. 325-331.
65. Parsopoulos, K.E.; Vrahatis, M.N. Recent approaches to global optimization problems through particle
swarm optimization. Natural computing 2002, 1, 235-306.
66. Bai, Q. Analysis of particle swarm optimization algorithm. Computer and information science 2010, 3, 180.
67. Parsopoulos, K.E.; Vrahatis, M.N. Particle swarm optimization method in multiobjective problems. In
Proceedings of Proceedings of the 2002 ACM symposium on Applied computing; pp. 603-607.
68. Ghamisi, P.; Couceiro, M.S.; Benediktsson, J.A.; Ferreira, N.M. An efficient method for segmentation of
images based on fractional calculus and natural selection. Expert Systems with Applications 2012, 39,
12407-12417.
69. Ghamisi, P.; Couceiro, M.S.; Martins, F.M.; Benediktsson, J.A. Multilevel image segmentation based on
fractional-order Darwinian particle swarm optimization. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
sensing 2013, 52, 2382-2394.
70. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Lewis, A. Grey wolf optimizer. Advances in engineering software 2014, 69, 46-
61.
71. Ardabili, S.; Mosavi, A.; Varkonyi-Koczy, A. Building Energy information: demand and consumption
prediction with Machine Learning models for sustainable and smart cities. Engineering for Sustainable
Future, Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Springer Nature Switzerland.: 2019.
72. Ardabili;, S.; Mosavi;, A.; Varkonyi-Koczy;, A. Systematic Review of Deep Learning and Machine
Learning Models in Biofuels Research,. Engineering for Sustainable Future, Lecture Notes in Networks and
Systems, Springer Nature Switzerland 2019.
73. Gundoshmian, T.M.; Ardabili, S.; Mosavi, A.; Varkonyi-Koczy, A.R. Prediction of combine harvester
performance using hybrid machine learning modeling and response surface methodology. 2019.
74. Gundoshmian, T.M., Ardabili, S., Mosavi, A. and Várkonyi-Kóczy, A.R., 2019, September. Prediction of
combine harvester performance using hybrid machine learning modeling and response surface
methodology. In International Conference on Global Research and Education (pp. 345-360). Springer,
Cham.
75. Hamilton, J.D. Time series analysis; Princeton university press Princeton, NJ: 1994; Vol. 2.
76. Ardabili, S.; Mosavi, A.; Mahmoudi, A.; Gundoshmian, T.M.; Nosratabadi, S.; Varkonyi-Koczy, A.R.
Modelling Temperature Variation of Mushroom Growing Hall Using Artificial Neural Networks.
Engineering for Sustainable Future, Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Springer Nature Switzerland.
2019.
77. Khosravi, A.; Koury, R.; Machado, L.; Pabon, J. Prediction of wind speed and wind direction using
artificial neural network, support vector regression and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system.
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 2018, 25, 146-160.
78. Amid, S.; Mesri Gundoshmian, T. Prediction of output energies for broiler production using linear
regression, ANN (MLP, RBF), and ANFIS models. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy 2017, 36,
577-585.
79. Hossain, M.A.; Ayodele, B.V.; Cheng, C.K.; Khan, M.R. Artificial neural network modeling of
hydrogen-rich syngas production from methane dry reforming over novel Ni/CaFe 2 O 4 catalysts.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 11119-11130.
80. Taghavifar, H.; Mardani, A. Wavelet neural network applied for prognostication of contact pressure
between soil and driving wheel. Information Processing in Agriculture 2014, 1, 51-56.
81. Sharabiani, V.; Kassar, F.; Gilandeh, Y.; Ardabili, S. APPLICATION OF SOFT COMPUTING
METHODS AND SPECTRAL REFLECTANCE DATA FOR WHEAT GROWTH MONITORING. The
Iraqi Journal of Agricultural Science 2019, 50, 1064-1076.
82. Mirzazadeh, A.; Abdollahpour, S.; Mahmoudi, A.; Bukat, A. Intelligent modeling of material separation
in combine harvester’s thresher by ANN. International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences 2012, 4,
1767-1777.
83. Khalesi, S.; Mahmoudi, A.; Hosainpour, A.; Alipour, A. Detection of walnut varieties using impact
acoustics and artificial neural networks (ANNs). Modern Applied Science 2012, 6, 43.
84. Reshadsedghi, A.; Mahmoudi, A. Detection of almond varieties using impact acoustics and artificial
neural networks. International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences 2013, 6, 1008.
85. Hassoun, M.H. Fundamentals of artificial neural networks; MIT press: 1995.
86. Jang, J.-S. ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system. IEEE transactions on systems, man,
and cybernetics 1993, 23, 665-685.
87. Faizollahzadeh_Ardabili; Mahmoudi, A.; Mesri Gundoshmian, T. Modeling and simulation controlling
system of HVAC using fuzzy and predictive (radial basis function ,RBF) controllers. Journal of Building
Engineering 2016, 6, 301–308.
88. Amid, S.; Mesri Gundoshmian, T. Prediction of output energy based on different energy inputs on
broiler production using application of adaptive neural-fuzzy inference system. Agri. Sci. Dev 2016, 5,
14-21.
89. Ardabili, S.; Mosavi, A.; Dehghani, M.; Várkonyi-Kóczy, A.R. Deep learning and machine learning in
hydrological processes climate change and earth systems a systematic review. In Proceedings of
International Conference on Global Research and Education; pp. 52-62.
90. Nosratabadi, S.; Mosavi, A.; Keivani, R.; Ardabili, S.; Aram, F. State of the art survey of deep learning
and machine learning models for smart cities and urban sustainability. In Proceedings of International
Conference on Global Research and Education; pp. 228-238.
91. Güler, I.; Übeyli, E.D. Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system for classification of EEG signals using
wavelet coefficients. Journal of neuroscience methods 2005, 148, 113-121.
92. Chang, J.-R.; Wei, L.-Y.; Cheng, C.-H. A hybrid ANFIS model based on AR and volatility for TAIEX
forecasting. Applied Soft Computing 2011, 11, 1388-1395.
93. Chang, F.-J.; Chang, Y.-T. Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system for prediction of water level in
reservoir. Advances in water resources 2006, 29, 1-10.
94. Moghaddamnia, A.; Gousheh, M.G.; Piri, J.; Amin, S.; Han, D. Evaporation estimation using artificial
neural networks and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system techniques. Advances in Water Resources
2009, 32, 88-97.
95. Çaydaş, U.; Hasçalık, A.; Ekici, S. An adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) model for wire-
EDM. Expert Systems with Applications 2009, 36, 6135-6139.
96. Yadav, D.; Chhabra, D.; Gupta, R.K.; Phogat, A.; Ahlawat, A. Modeling and analysis of significant
process parameters of FDM 3D printer using ANFIS. Materials Today: Proceedings 2020, 21, 1592-1604.
97. Faizollahzadeh_Ardabili; Mahmoudi, A.; Gundoshmian, T.M.; Roshanianfard, A. Modeling and
comparison of fuzzy and on/off controller in a mushroom growing hall. Measurement 2016, 90, 127-134.