Predicting insect outbreaks using machine learning: A mountain pine beetle case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Planning forest management relies on predicting insect outbreaks such as mountain pine beetle, particularly in the intermediate‐term future, e.g., 5‐year. Machine‐learning algorithms are potential solutions to this challenging problem due to their many successes across a variety of prediction tasks. However, there are many subtle challenges in applying them: identifying the best learning models and the best subset of available covariates (including time lags) and properly evaluating the models to avoid misleading performance‐measures. We systematically address these issues in predicting the chance of a mountain pine beetle outbreak in the Cypress Hills area and seek models with the best performance at predicting future 1‐, 3‐, 5‐ and 7‐year infestations. We train nine machine‐learning models, including two generalized boosted regression trees (GBM) that predict future 1‐ and 3‐year infestations with 92% and 88% AUC, and two novel mixed models that predict future 5‐ and 7‐year infestations with 86% and 84% AUC, respectively. We also consider forming the train and test datasets by splitting the original dataset randomly rather than using the appropriate year‐based approach and show that this may obtain models that score high on the test dataset but low in practice, resulting in inaccurate performance evaluations. For example, a k ‐nearest neighbor model with the actual performance of 68% AUC, scores the misleadingly high 78% on a test dataset obtained from a random split, but the more accurate 66% on a year‐based split. We then investigate how the prediction accuracy varies with respect to the provided history length of the covariates and find that neural network and naive Bayes, predict more accurately as history‐length increases, particularly for future 1‐ and 3‐year predictions, and roughly the same holds with GBM. Our approach is applicable to other invasive species. The resulting predictors can be used in planning forest and pest management and planning sampling locations in field studies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".