Automated Machine Learning: A Case Study of Genomic "Image-Based" Prediction in Maize Hybrids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning methods such as multilayer perceptrons (MLP) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) have emerged as promising methods for genomic prediction (GP). In this context, we assess the performance of MLP and CNN on regression and classification tasks in a case study with maize hybrids. The genomic information was provided to the MLP as a relationship matrix and to the CNN as "genomic images." In the regression task, the machine learning models were compared along with GBLUP. Under the classification task, MLP and CNN were compared. In this case, the traits (plant height and grain yield) were discretized in such a way to create balanced (moderate selection intensity) and unbalanced (extreme selection intensity) datasets for further evaluations. An automatic hyperparameter search for MLP and CNN was performed, and the best models were reported. For both task types, several metrics were calculated under a validation scheme to assess the effect of the prediction method and other variables. Overall, MLP and CNN presented competitive results to GBLUP. Also, we bring new insights on automated machine learning for genomic prediction and its implications to plant breeding.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".