Comparison of imputation methods for missing production data of dairy cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, vast amounts of data representing feed intake, growth, and environmental impact of individual animals are being recorded in on-farm settings. Despite their apparent use, data collected in real-world applications often have missing values in one or several variables, due to reasons including human error, machine error, or sampling frequency misalignment across multiple variables. Since incomplete datasets are less valuable for downstream data analysis, it is important to address the missing value problem properly. One option may be to reduce the dataset to a subset that contains only complete data, but considerable data may be lost via this process. The current study aimed to compare imputation methods for the estimation of missing values in a raw dataset of dairy cattle including 454 553 records collected from 629 cows between 2009 and 2020. The dataset was subjected to a cleaning process that reduced its size to 437 075 observations corresponding to 512 cows. Missing values were present in four variables: concentrate DM intake (CDMI, missing percentage = 2.30%), forage DM intake (FDMI, 8.05%), milk yield (MY, 15.12%), and BW (64.33%). After removing all missing values, the resulting dataset (n = 129 353) was randomly sampled five times to create five independent subsets that exhibit the same missing data percentages as the cleaned dataset. Four univariate and nine multivariate imputation methods (eight machine learning methods and the MissForest method) were applied and evaluated on the five repeats, and average imputation performance was reported for each repeat. The results showed that Random Forest was overall the best imputation method for this type of data and had a lower mean squared prediction error and higher concordance correlation coefficient than the other imputation methods for all imputed variables. Random Forest performed particularly well for imputing CDMI, MY, and BW, compared to imputing FDMI.
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 | 0.000 | 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".