MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2024· article· en· W4404917641 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Bernard T. Agyeman, Benjamin Decardi‐Nelson, Jinfeng Liu, Sirish L. Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueControl Engineering Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates
KeywordsComputer scienceMulti-agent systemDistributed computingScheduling (production processes)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient water management in agriculture is essential for addressing the growing freshwater scarcity crisis. Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) has emerged as a promising method for solving daily irrigation scheduling problems in spatially variable fields, where management zones are employed to account for field variability. To enhance the application of MARL to address daily irrigation scheduling in large-scale fields with significant spatial variation, this study proposes a Semi-Centralized MARL (SCMARL) framework. The SCMARL framework adopts a hierarchical structure, decomposing the daily irrigation scheduling problem into two levels of decision-making. At the top level, a centralized coordinator agent determines irrigation timing, which is modeled as a discrete variable, based on field-wide soil moisture data, crop conditions, and weather forecasts. At the lower level, decentralized local agents use local soil moisture, crop, and weather information to determine the appropriate irrigation amounts for each management zone. To address the issue of non-stationarity in this framework, a state augmentation technique is employed, wherein the coordinator’s decision is incorporated into the decision-making process of the local agents. The SCMARL framework, which leverages the Proximal Policy Optimization algorithm for training the agents, is evaluated on a large-scale field in Lethbridge, Canada, and compared with an existing MARL irrigation scheduling approach. The results demonstrate improved performance, achieving a 4.0% reduction in water use and a 6.3% increase in irrigation water use efficiency.

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)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueControl Engineering PracticeSame topicEvolutionary Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207