Predicting carbon dioxide and energy fluxes across global FLUXNET sites withregression algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Spatio-temporal fields of land–atmosphere fluxes derived from data-driven models can complement simulations by process-based land surface models. While a number of strategies for empirical models with eddy-covariance flux data have been applied, a systematic intercomparison of these methods has been missing so far. In this study, we performed a cross-validation experiment for predicting carbon dioxide, latent heat, sensible heat and net radiation fluxes across different ecosystem types with 11 machine learning (ML) methods from four different classes (kernel methods, neural networks, tree methods, and regression splines). We applied two complementary setups: (1) 8-day average fluxes based on remotely sensed data and (2) daily mean fluxes based on meteorological data and a mean seasonal cycle of remotely sensed variables. The patterns of predictions from different ML and experimental setups were highly consistent. There were systematic differences in performance among the fluxes, with the following ascending order: net ecosystem exchange (R2 < 0.5), ecosystem respiration (R2 > 0.6), gross primary production (R2> 0.7), latent heat (R2 > 0.7), sensible heat (R2 > 0.7), and net radiation (R2 > 0.8). The ML methods predicted the across-site variability and the mean seasonal cycle of the observed fluxes very well (R2 > 0.7), while the 8-day deviations from the mean seasonal cycle were not well predicted (R2 < 0.5). Fluxes were better predicted at forested and temperate climate sites than at sites in extreme climates or less represented by training data (e.g., the tropics). The evaluated large ensemble of ML-based models will be the basis of new global flux products.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".