Using Machine Learning for Estimating Rice Chlorophyll Content from In Situ Hyperspectral Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chlorophyll is an essential pigment for photosynthesis in crops, and leaf chlorophyll content can be used as an indicator for crop growth status and help guide nitrogen fertilizer applications. Estimating crop chlorophyll content plays an important role in precision agriculture. In this study, a variable, rate of change in reflectance between wavelengths ‘a’ and ‘b’ (RCRWa-b), derived from in situ hyperspectral remote sensing data combined with four advanced machine learning techniques, Gaussian process regression (GPR), random forest regression (RFR), support vector regression (SVR), and gradient boosting regression tree (GBRT), were used to estimate the chlorophyll content (measured by a portable soil–plant analysis development meter) of rice. The performances of the four machine learning models were assessed and compared using root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and coefficient of determination (R2). The results revealed that four features of RCRWa-b, RCRW551.0–565.6, RCRW739.5–743.5, RCRW684.4–687.1 and RCRW667.9–672.0, were effective in estimating the chlorophyll content of rice, and the RFR model generated the highest prediction accuracy (training set: RMSE = 1.54, MAE =1.23 and R2 = 0.95; validation set: RMSE = 2.64, MAE = 1.99 and R2 = 0.80). The GPR model was found to have the strongest generalization (training set: RMSE = 2.83, MAE = 2.16 and R2 = 0.77; validation set: RMSE = 2.97, MAE = 2.30 and R2 = 0.76). We conclude that RCRWa-b is a useful variable to estimate chlorophyll content of rice, and RFR and GPR are powerful machine learning algorithms for estimating the chlorophyll content of rice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".