Predicting Optical Water Quality Indicators from Remote Sensing Using Machine Learning Algorithms in Tropical Highlands of Ethiopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water quality degradation of freshwater bodies is a concern worldwide, particularly in Africa, where data are scarce and standard water quality monitoring is expensive. This study explored the use of remote sensing imagery and machine learning (ML) algorithms as an alternative to standard field measuring for monitoring water quality in large and remote areas constrained by logistics and finance. Six machine learning (ML) algorithms integrated with Landsat 8 imagery were evaluated for their accuracy in predicting three optically active water quality indicators observed monthly in the period from August 2016 to April 2022: turbidity (TUR), total dissolved solids (TDS) and Chlorophyll a (Chl-a). The six ML algorithms studied were the artificial neural network (ANN), support vector machine regression (SVM), random forest regression (RF), XGBoost regression (XGB), AdaBoost regression (AB), and gradient boosting regression (GB) algorithms. XGB performed best at predicting Chl-a, with an R2 of 0.78, Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) of 0.78, mean absolute relative error (MARE) of 0.082 and root mean squared error (RMSE) of 9.79 µg/L. RF performed best at predicting TDS (with an R2 of 0.79, NSE of 0.80, MARE of 0.082, and RMSE of 12.30 mg/L) and TUR (with an R2 of 0.80, NSE of 0.81, and MARE of 0.072 and RMSE of 7.82 NTU). The main challenges were data size, sampling frequency, and sampling resolution. To overcome the data limitation, we used a K-fold cross validation technique that could obtain the most out of the limited data to build a robust model. Furthermore, we also employed stratified sampling techniques to improve the ML modeling for turbidity. Thus, this study shows the possibility of monitoring water quality in large freshwater bodies with limited observed data using remote sensing integrated with ML algorithms, potentially enhancing decision making.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".