MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410977557 · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2025.110599

Meticulous estimation of maize actual evapotranspiration: A comprehensive explainable CatBoost algorithm reinforced with Jackknife uncertainty paradigm

2025· article· en· W4410977557 on OpenAlexafffund
Mina Rahimi, Masoud Karbasi, Mehdi Jamei, Vahid Rezaverdinejad, Anurag Malik, Aitazaz A. Farooque, Zaher Mundher Yaseen‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers and Electronics in Agriculture · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSolar Radiation and Photovoltaics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsJackknife resamplingEvapotranspirationEstimationComputer scienceAlgorithmMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMathematical optimizationData miningMathematicsEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• CatBoost accurately predicted maize AET, outperforming Random Forest, Extra Trees, MLP, KNN models. • Boruta feature selection identified key variables, reducing data, improving accuracy and speed. • SHAP analysis found net radiation and air temperature most impact AET prediction. • Jackknife + uncertainty analysis validated CatBoost as lowest error model. Accurately estimating daily actual evapotranspiration (AET) is essential for managing water resources in irrigated regions. The current study employed a new machine learning technique (CatBoost) to predict maize AET using meteorological and soil-related data. Four benchmark machine learning techniques (Random Forest, Extra Tree, multi-layer perceptron neural network, and K-nearest neighbor) were used for comparison. The lysimeter data of maize AET from Bushland (Texas) in the US were selected to evaluate the performance of the models. The data contained different soil and meteorological parameters. Four different scenarios (comb1: All of the data, comb2: Based on Lasso regression feature selection, comb3: Based on Boruta feature selection algorithm, and comb4: Common meteorological data) were used to predict AET. Various statistical metrics were employed to assess the models’ performance, including the determination coefficient (R 2 ) and root mean square error (RMSE). Comparison between different scenarios showed that the Boruta technique improves precision and decreases computation time by reducing the dimension of the input data. The CatBoost model had the best accuracy in all scenarios. The current study showed that the CatBoost algorithm (comb3 scenario) can predict AET with higher accuracy (R 2 = 9.625 × 10 −1 and RMSE = 5.594 × 10 −1 mm/d). Combining the comb3 scenario with extra tree (R 2 = 9.514 × 10 −1 and RMSE = 6.716 × 10 −1 mm/d) and random forest (R 2 = 9.444 × 10 −1 and RMSE = 7.084 × 10 −1 mm/d) models ranked second and third best accuracy. Also, the SHAP analysis was performed to interpret the black-box model outputs. The SHAP analysis showed that net radiation and air temperature are the most important input parameters for AET 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputers and Electronics in AgricultureSame topicSolar Radiation and PhotovoltaicsFrench-language works237,207