Using Ensembles of Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Reference Evapotranspiration (ET0) Using Limited Meteorological Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To maximize crop production, reference evapotranspiration (ET0) measurement is crucial for managing water resources and planning crop water needs. The FAO-PM56 method is recommended globally for estimating ET0 and evaluating alternative methods due to its extensive theoretical foundation. Numerous meteorological parameters, needed for ET0 estimation, are difficult to obtain in developing countries. Therefore, alternative ways to estimate ET0 using fewer climatic data are of critical importance. To estimate ET0 with alternative methods, difference climatic parameters of temperatures, relative humidity (maximum and minimum), sunshine hours, and wind speed for a period of 20 years from 1996 to 2015 were used in the study. The data were recorded by 11 meteorological observatories situated in various climatic regions of Pakistan. The significance of the climatic parameters used was evaluated using sensitivity analysis. The machine learning techniques of single decision tree (SDT), tree boost (TB) and decision tree forest (DTF) were used to perform sensitivity analysis. The outcomes indicated that DTF-based models estimated ET0 with higher accuracy and fewer climatic variables as compared to other ML techniques used in the study. The DTF technique, with Model 15 as input, outperformed other techniques for the most part of the performance metrics (i.e., NSE = 0.93, R2 = 0.96 and RMSE = 0.48 mm/month). The results indicated that the DTF with fewer climatic variables of mean relative humidity, wind speed and minimum temperature could estimate ET0 accurately and outperformed other ML techniques. Additionally, a non-linear ensemble (NLE) of ML techniques was further used to estimate ET0 using the best input combination (i.e., Model 15). It was seen that the applied non-linear ensemble (NLE) approach enhanced modelling accuracy as compared to a stand-alone application of ML techniques (R2 Multan = 0.97, R2 Skardu = 0.99, R2 ISB = 0.98, R2 Bahawalpur = 0.98 etc.). The study results affirmed the use of an ensemble model for ET0 estimation and suggest applying it in other parts of the world to validate model performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".