Uncertainty Quantification of Soil Organic Carbon Estimation from Remote Sensing Data with Conformal Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil organic carbon (SOC) contents and stocks provide valuable insights into soil health, nutrient cycling, greenhouse gas emissions, and overall ecosystem productivity. Given this, remote sensing data coupled with advanced machine learning (ML) techniques have eased SOC level estimation while revealing its patterns across different ecosystems. However, despite these advances, the intricacies of training reliable and yet certain SOC models for specific end-users remain a great challenge. To address this, we need robust SOC uncertainty quantification techniques. Here, we introduce a methodology that leverages conformal prediction to address the uncertainty in estimating SOC contents while using remote sensing data. Conformal prediction generates statistically reliable uncertainty intervals for predictions made by ML models. Our analysis, performed on the LUCAS dataset in Europe and incorporating a suite of relevant environmental covariates, underscores the efficacy of integrating conformal prediction with another ML model, specifically random forest. In addition, we conducted a comparative assessment of our results against prevalent uncertainty quantification methods for SOC prediction, employing different evaluation metrics to assess both model uncertainty and accuracy. Our methodology showcases the utility of the generated prediction sets as informative indicators of uncertainty. These sets accurately identify samples that pose prediction challenges, providing valuable insights for end-users seeking reliable predictions in the complexities of SOC estimation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".