Vegetation Water Content Retrieval from Spaceborne GNSS-R and Multi-Source Remote Sensing Data Using Ensemble Machine Learning Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vegetation water content (VWC) is a crucial parameter for evaluating vegetation growth, climate change, natural disasters such as forest fires, and drought prediction. Spaceborne global navigation satellite system reflectometry (GNSS-R) has become a valuable tool for soil moisture (SM) and biomass remote sensing (RS) due to its higher spatial resolution compared with microwave measurements. Although previous studies have confirmed the enormous potential of spaceborne GNSS-R for vegetation monitoring, the utilization of this technology to fuse multiple RS parameters to retrieve VWC is not yet mature. For this purpose, this paper constructs a local high-spatiotemporal-resolution spaceborne GNSS-R VWC retrieval model that integrates key information, such as bistatic radar cross section (BRCS), effective scattering area, CYGNSS variables, and surface auxiliary parameters based on five ensemble machine learning (ML) algorithms (i.e., bagging tree (BT), gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), random forest (RF), and light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM)). We extensively tested the performance of different models using SMAP ancillary data as validation data, and the results show that the root mean square errors (RMSEs) of the BT, XGBoost, RF, and LightGBM models in VWC retrieval are better than 0.50 kg/m2. Among them, the BT and RF models performed the best in localized VWC retrieval, with RMSE values of 0.50 kg/m2. Conversely, the XGBoost model exhibits the worst performance, with an RMSE of 0.85 kg/m2. In terms of RMSE, the RF model demonstrates improvements of 70.00%, 52.00%, and 32.00% over the XGBoost, LightGBM, and GBDT models, respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".