预测实际蒸散发的机器学习模型的超参数优化

IF 4.9
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 ,&nbsp;Elvira Di Nardo ,&nbsp;Stefano Ferraris ,&nbsp;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 ,&nbsp;Elvira Di Nardo ,&nbsp;Stefano Ferraris ,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于成本高、技术复杂以及需要专门的仪器,使用涡动相关仪和蒸散仪直接测量实际蒸散(AET)具有挑战性,特别是在大面积地区。因此,AET数据有限,需要利用气象和土壤特征进行预测。本研究开发并评估了基于两种输入组合的AET预测机器学习模型。第一组,通过Pearson相关性、容忍度和VIF评分来选择,包括净二氧化碳、感热通量、空气温度、相对湿度和风速。第二组是根据实际应用和更容易获取而选择的,包括土壤表面温度、空气温度、相对湿度和风速。提出了两种预测方法:(i)深度学习模型(LSTM, GRU, CNN)和(ii)经典机器学习模型(SVR, RF)。采用贝叶斯优化对超参数进行了优化,并与网格搜索进行了比较。贝叶斯优化显示了更高的性能和更少的计算时间。采用统计指标(RMSE、MSE、MAE、R2)评价模型性能。深度学习方法优于经典方法,其中LSTM的效果最好(贝叶斯优化:RMSE=0.0230, MSE=0.0005, MAE=0.0139, R2=0.8861)。预测因子越少,性能越差。LSTM保持优势,5个预测因子R2=0.8861, 4个预测因子R2=0.8467。LSTM在预测因子较少的情况下也略优于SVR (R2 = 0.8456)。总的来说,深度学习方法,特别是贝叶斯优化,已经被证明比经典的机器学习方法更有效。这一发现鼓励未来研究使用不同的输入组合和先进的建模方法来准确预测AET。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Machine learning with applications
Machine learning with applications Management Science and Operations Research, Artificial Intelligence, Computer Science Applications
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
98 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信