MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Graph Sparsification for GCN Towards Optimal Crop Yield Predictions

2023· article· en· W4387802619 on OpenAlexafffund
Saghar Bagheri, Gene Cheung, Tim Eadie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGraphComputer scienceGranularityAlgorithmKernel (algebra)Theoretical computer scienceMathematicsDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In agronomics, predicting crop yield at a per field / county granularity is important for farmers to minimize uncertainty and plan seeding for the next crop cycle. While state-of-the-art prediction techniques employ graph convolutional nets (GCN) to predict future crop yields given relevant features and crop yields of previous years, a dense underlying graph kernel requires long training and execution time. In this paper, we propose a graph sparsification method based on the Fiedler number to remove edges from a complete graph kernel, in order to lower the complexity of GCN training / execution. Specifically, we first show that greedily removing an edge at a time that induces the minimal change in the second eigenvalue leads to a sparse graph with good GCN performance. We then propose a fast method to choose an edge for removal per iteration based on an eigenvalue perturbation theorem. Experiments show that our Fiedler-based method produces a sparse graph with good GCN performance compared to other graph sparsification schemes in crop yield prediction.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207