Chalachew Muluken Liyew , Elvira Di Nardo , Stefano Ferraris , Rosa Meo
{"title":"预测实际蒸散发的机器学习模型的超参数优化","authors":"Chalachew Muluken Liyew , Elvira Di Nardo , Stefano Ferraris , Rosa Meo","doi":"10.1016/j.mlwa.2025.100661","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Direct measurement of actual evapotranspiration (AET) using eddy covariance and lysimeters is challenging, particularly in large areas, due to high cost, technical complexity, and the need for specialized instrumentation. Consequently, AET data is limited, prompting the use of meteorological and soil features for prediction. This study develops and evaluates machine learning models for AET prediction based on two input combinations. The first group, selected through Pearson correlation, tolerance, and VIF scores to address multicollinearity, includes net CO<sub>2</sub>, sensible heat flux, air temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed. The second group, chosen for practical applicability and more accessible, consists of soil surface temperature, air temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed.</div><div>Two predictive approaches are proposed: (i) deep learning models (LSTM, GRU, CNN) and (ii) classical machine learning models (SVR, RF). Hyperparameters were optimized using Bayesian optimization and compared with grid search. Bayesian optimization demonstrated higher performance and reduced computation time. Model performance was evaluated using statistical indicators (RMSE, MSE, MAE, R<sup>2</sup>). Deep learning methods outperformed classical methods, with LSTM achieving the best results (Bayesian optimization: RMSE=0.0230, MSE=0.0005, MAE=0.0139, R<sup>2</sup>=0.8861).</div><div>Performance decreased with fewer predictors. LSTM maintained superiority, achieving R<sup>2</sup>=0.8861 with five predictors and R<sup>2</sup>=0.8467 with four. LSTM also slightly outperformed SVR (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.8456) with fewer predictors. Overall, deep learning methods, especially with Bayesian optimization, have been shown to be more effective than classical machine learning methods for AET prediction. This findings encourage future research using varied input combinations and advanced modeling approaches for AET accurate prediction.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74093,"journal":{"name":"Machine learning with applications","volume":"20 ","pages":"Article 100661"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hyperparameter optimization of machine learning models for predicting actual evapotranspiration\",\"authors\":\"Chalachew Muluken Liyew , Elvira Di Nardo , Stefano Ferraris , Rosa Meo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mlwa.2025.100661\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Direct measurement of actual evapotranspiration (AET) using eddy covariance and lysimeters is challenging, particularly in large areas, due to high cost, technical complexity, and the need for specialized instrumentation. Consequently, AET data is limited, prompting the use of meteorological and soil features for prediction. This study develops and evaluates machine learning models for AET prediction based on two input combinations. The first group, selected through Pearson correlation, tolerance, and VIF scores to address multicollinearity, includes net CO<sub>2</sub>, sensible heat flux, air temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed. The second group, chosen for practical applicability and more accessible, consists of soil surface temperature, air temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed.</div><div>Two predictive approaches are proposed: (i) deep learning models (LSTM, GRU, CNN) and (ii) classical machine learning models (SVR, RF). Hyperparameters were optimized using Bayesian optimization and compared with grid search. Bayesian optimization demonstrated higher performance and reduced computation time. Model performance was evaluated using statistical indicators (RMSE, MSE, MAE, R<sup>2</sup>). Deep learning methods outperformed classical methods, with LSTM achieving the best results (Bayesian optimization: RMSE=0.0230, MSE=0.0005, MAE=0.0139, R<sup>2</sup>=0.8861).</div><div>Performance decreased with fewer predictors. LSTM maintained superiority, achieving R<sup>2</sup>=0.8861 with five predictors and R<sup>2</sup>=0.8467 with four. LSTM also slightly outperformed SVR (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.8456) with fewer predictors. Overall, deep learning methods, especially with Bayesian optimization, have been shown to be more effective than classical machine learning methods for AET prediction. This findings encourage future research using varied input combinations and advanced modeling approaches for AET accurate prediction.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Machine learning with applications\",\"volume\":\"20 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100661\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Machine learning with applications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666827025000441\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Machine learning with applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666827025000441","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Hyperparameter optimization of machine learning models for predicting actual evapotranspiration
Direct measurement of actual evapotranspiration (AET) using eddy covariance and lysimeters is challenging, particularly in large areas, due to high cost, technical complexity, and the need for specialized instrumentation. Consequently, AET data is limited, prompting the use of meteorological and soil features for prediction. This study develops and evaluates machine learning models for AET prediction based on two input combinations. The first group, selected through Pearson correlation, tolerance, and VIF scores to address multicollinearity, includes net CO2, sensible heat flux, air temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed. The second group, chosen for practical applicability and more accessible, consists of soil surface temperature, air temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed.
Two predictive approaches are proposed: (i) deep learning models (LSTM, GRU, CNN) and (ii) classical machine learning models (SVR, RF). Hyperparameters were optimized using Bayesian optimization and compared with grid search. Bayesian optimization demonstrated higher performance and reduced computation time. Model performance was evaluated using statistical indicators (RMSE, MSE, MAE, R2). Deep learning methods outperformed classical methods, with LSTM achieving the best results (Bayesian optimization: RMSE=0.0230, MSE=0.0005, MAE=0.0139, R2=0.8861).
Performance decreased with fewer predictors. LSTM maintained superiority, achieving R2=0.8861 with five predictors and R2=0.8467 with four. LSTM also slightly outperformed SVR (R2 = 0.8456) with fewer predictors. Overall, deep learning methods, especially with Bayesian optimization, have been shown to be more effective than classical machine learning methods for AET prediction. This findings encourage future research using varied input combinations and advanced modeling approaches for AET accurate prediction.