MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402500857 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.08442

A semi-centralized multi-agent RL framework for efficient irrigation scheduling

2024· preprint· en· W4402500857 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bernard T. Agyeman, Benjamin Decard-Nelson, Jinfeng Liu, Sirish L. Shah

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Distributed computingMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a Semi-Centralized Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (SCMARL) approach for irrigation scheduling in spatially variable agricultural fields, where management zones address spatial variability. The SCMARL framework is hierarchical in nature, with a centralized coordinator agent at the top level and decentralized local agents at the second level. The coordinator agent makes daily binary irrigation decisions based on field-wide conditions, which are communicated to the local agents. Local agents determine appropriate irrigation amounts for specific management zones using local conditions. The framework employs state augmentation approach to handle non-stationarity in the local agents' environments. An extensive evaluation on a large-scale field in Lethbridge, Canada, compares the SCMARL approach with a learning-based multi-agent model predictive control scheduling approach, highlighting its enhanced performance, resulting in water conservation and improved Irrigation Water Use Efficiency (IWUE). Notably, the proposed approach achieved a 4.0% savings in irrigation water while enhancing the IWUE by 6.3%.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.131 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207