Prediction of hourly actual evapotranspiration using neural networks, genetic programming, and statistical models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The complexity of the evapotranspiration process and its variability in time and space have imposed some limitations on previously developed evapotranspiration models. In this study, two data‐driven models: genetic programming (GP) and artificial neural networks (ANNs), and statistical regression models were developed and compared for estimating the hourly eddy covariance (EC)‐measured actual evapotranspiration (AET) using meteorological variables. The utility of the investigated data‐driven models was also compared with that of HYDRUS‐1D model, which makes use of conventional Penman–Monteith (PM) model for the prediction of AET. The latent heat (LE), which is measured using the EC method, is modelled as a function of five climatic variables: net radiation, ground temperature, air temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed in a reconstructed landscape located in Northern Alberta, Canada. Several ANN models were evaluated using two training algorithms of Levenberg–Marquardt and Bayesian regularization. The GP technique was used to generate mathematical equations correlating AET to the five climatic variables. Furthermore, the climatic variables, as well as their two‐factor interactions, were statistically analysed to obtain a regression equation and to indicate the climatic factors having significant effect on the evapotranspiration process. HYDRUS‐1D model as an available physically based model was examined for estimating AET using climatic variables, leaf area index (LAI), and soil moisture information. The results indicated that all three proposed data‐driven models were able to approximate the AET reasonably well; however, GP and regression models had better generalization ability than the ANN model. The results of HYDRUS‐1D model exhibited that a physically based model, such as HYDRUS‐1D, might be comparable or even inferior to the data‐driven models in terms of the overall prediction accuracy. Based on the developed GP and regression models, net radiation and ground temperature had larger contribution to the AET process than other variables. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".