MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4221092059 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-5580

Assessing the generalization power of three machine learning models and three evapotranspiration formulas using 143 FLUXNET towers data

2022· preprint· en· W4221092059 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Amani, Marie‐Amélie Boucher, Alexandre R. Cabral, Daniel F. Nadeau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverfittingEvapotranspirationEddy covarianceFluxNetRandom forestArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsComputer scienceStatisticsRemote sensingAlgorithmArtificial neural networkGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Direct measurement of evapotranspiration (ET) is costly and difficult to implement on a large scale. It is therefore a necessity to count on reliable approaches to estimate it. Among such approaches, Machine learning models (MLMs) are easily applicable and computationally inexpensive, especially for broadscale analyses. In this study, three different types of MLMs, namely Random Forest, Light Gradient Boosting Machine and Neural Networks are assessed for their estimation accuracy on unseen locations (i.e. generalization power). Estimates of ET from these MLMs are compared against direct observation from 143 eddy-covariance flux towers spanning across a broad range of climate and vegetation types. We initially hypothesized that the MLMs, provided that they are trained using data from a wide variety of climate and vegetation types, are able to accurately estimate ET on unseen locations (default experiment). The MLMs are benchmarked against Penman, Priestley-Taylor, and Oudin ET formulas/models. The results show that the MLMs indeed perform satisfactorily on the majority of the test locations, but not in all of them, yielding on average a 15% lower normalized mean-absolute-error (NMAE) than the Priestley-Taylor formula. Moreover, we compared the performance of the MLMs trained and tested using different data splitting strategies. When training and testing data are not spatially separated, the results show that the Random Forest model has a 7% lower NMAE compared to when the spatial separation is done (the default experiment). This suggests that the MLMs are prone to overfit to site-specific patterns that might not be relevant for other locations. In conclusion, the results of this large scale study points toward reliability of the MLMs as far as their generalization power is concerned. At the same time, they also show that different data splitting strategies can lead to significantly different results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics→French-language works237,207→