MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415376198 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-20386-y

An interpretable machine learning approach based on SHAP, Sobol and LIME values for precise estimation of daily soybean crop coefficients

2025· article· en· W4415376198 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Elbeltagi, Aman Srivastava, Xinchun Cao, Ali El Bilali, Ali Raza, Leena Khadke, Ali Salem

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSobol sequenceInterpretabilityMean squared errorRandom forestIrrigation schedulingGradient boostingConsistency (knowledge bases)Coefficient of determination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing water scarcity and climate variability have intensified the need for precise agricultural irrigation management. Accurate estimation of crop coefficients (Kc) is critical for determining crop water requirements, especially in arid and semi-arid regions. However, conventional methods for estimating Kc often rely on generalized plant characteristics, which may not account for local climatic variations. In this study, we address this challenge by predicting the daily crop coefficient for soybean using four machine learning models: Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Extra Tree (ET), Random Forest (RF), and CatBoost. These models were trained on meteorological data from Suhaj Governorate, Egypt, spanning 1979-2014. Additionally, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), Sobol sensitivity analysis, and Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) were applied to evaluate model interpretability and consistency with physical processes. Among the models evaluated, the ET model achieved the highest accuracy, with r = 0.96, NSE = 0.93, RMSE = 0.05, and MAE = 0.02. XGBoost and RF also performed well, each obtaining r = 0.96, NSE = 0.92, RMSE = 0.06, and MAE = 0.02. In comparison, CatBoost demonstrated slightly lower accuracy, with r = 0.95, NSE = 0.91, RMSE = 0.06, and MAE = 0.02. SHAP and Sobol analyses consistently identified the antecedent crop coefficient [[Formula: see text]] and solar radiation (Sin) as the most influential variables. LIME results revealed localized variations in predictions, reflecting dynamic crop-climate interactions. This study underscores the importance of integrating interpretable machine learning models to enhance both predictive accuracy and reliability while maintaining alignment with critical physical processes. The proposed framework offers a robust tool for improving daily Kc estimation, thereby supporting more sustainable irrigation practices and climate-resilient agriculture.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics→French-language works237,207→