Fiber Quality Prediction Using Nir Spectral Data: Tree-Based Ensemble Learning VS Deep Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing applications of near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy in wood quality control and monitoring necessitates focusing on data-driven methods to develop predictive models. Despite the advancements in analyzing NIR spectral data, literature on wood science and engineering has mainly uti- lizedthe classic model development methods, such as principal component analysis (PCA) regression or partial least squares (PLS) regression, with relatively limited studies conducted on evaluating machine learning (ML) models, and specifically, artificial neural networks (ANNs). This couldpotentially limit the performance of predictive models, specifically for some wood properties, such as tracheid width that are both time-consuming tomeasure and challenging to predict using spectral data. This study aims to enhance the prediction accuracy for tracheid width using deep neural networks and tree-based ensemble learning algorithms on a dataset consisting of 2018 samples and 692 features (NIR spectra wavelengths). Accord- ingly, NIR spectra were fed into multilayer perceptron (MLP), 1 dimensional-convolutional neural net- works (1D-CNNs), random forest, TreeNet gradient-boosting, extreme gradient-boosting (XGBoost), and light gradient-boosting machine (LGBM). It was of interest to study the performance of the models with and without applying PCA to assess how effective they would perform when analyzing NIR spectra with- out employing dimensionality reduction on data. It was shown that gradient-boosting machines outper- formed the ANNs regardless of the number of features (data dimension). Allthe models performed better without PCA. It is concluded that tree-based gradient-boosting machines could be effectively used for wood characterization utilizing a medium-sized NIR spectral dataset.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".