Learning Embeddings for Graphs and Other High Dimensional Data

An immense amount of data is nowadays produced on a daily basis and extracting knowledge from such data proves fruitful for many scientific purposes. Machine learning algorithms are means to such end and have morphed from a nascent research field to omnipresent algorithms running in the background of many applications we use on a daily basis. Low-dimensionality of data, however, is highly conducive to efficient machine learning methods. However, real-world data is seldom low-dimensional; on the contrary, real-world data can be starkly high-dimensional. Such high-dimensional data is exemplified by graph-structured data, such as biological networks of protein-protein interaction, social networks, etc., on which machine learning techniques in their traditional form cannot easily be applied. The focus of this report is thus to explore algorithms whose aim is to generate representation vectors that best encode structural information of the vertices of graphs. The vectors can be in turn passed onto down-stream machine learning algorithms to classify nodes or predict links among them. This study is firstly prefaced by introducing dimensionality reduction techniques for data residing in geometric spaces, followed by two techniques for embedding vertices of graphs into low-dimensional spaces

The chaos in calibrating crop models

Calibration, the estimation of model parameters based on fitting the model to experimental data, is among the first steps in many applications of system models and has an important impact on simulated values. Here we propose and illustrate a novel method of developing guidelines for calibration of system models. Our example is calibration of the phenology component of crop models. The approach is based on a multi-model study, where all teams are provided with the same data and asked to return simulations for the same conditions. All teams are asked to document in detail their calibration approach, including choices with respect to criteria for best parameters, choice of parameters to estimate and software. Based on an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the various choices, we propose calibration recommendations that cover a comprehensive list of decisions and that are based on actual practices.HighlightsWe propose a new approach to deriving calibration recommendations for system modelsApproach is based on analyzing calibration in multi-model simulation exercisesResulting recommendations are holistic and anchored in actual practiceWe apply the approach to calibration of crop models used to simulate phenologyRecommendations concern: objective function, parameters to estimate, software usedCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest

How well do crop modeling groups predict wheat phenology, given calibration data from the target population?

International audiencePredicting phenology is essential for adapting varieties to different environmental conditions and for crop management. Therefore, it is important to evaluate how well different crop modeling groups can predict phenology. Multiple evaluation studies have been previously published, but it is still difficult to generalize the findings from such studies since they often test some specific aspect of extrapolation to new conditions, or do not test on data that is truly independent of the data used for calibration. In this study, we analyzed the prediction of wheat phenology in Northern France under observed weather and current management, which is a problem of practical importance for wheat management. The results of 27 modeling groups are evaluated, where modeling group encompasses model structure, i.e. the model equations, the calibration method and the values of those parameters not affected by calibration. The data for calibration and evaluation are sampled from the same target population, thus extrapolation is limited. The calibration and evaluation data have neither year nor site in common, to guarantee rigorous evaluation of prediction for new weather and sites. The best modeling groups, and also the mean and median of the simulations, have a mean absolute error (MAE) of about 3 days, which is comparable to the measurement error. Almost all models do better than using average number of days or average sum of degree days to predict phenology. On the other hand, there are important differences between modeling groups, due to model structural differences and to differences between groups using the same model structure, which emphasizes that model structure alone does not completely determine prediction accuracy. In addition to providing information for our specific environments and varieties, these results are a useful contribution to a knowledge base of how well modeling groups can predict phenology, when provided with calibration data from the target population

The chaos in calibrating crop models: Lessons learned from a multi-model calibration exercise

peer reviewedCalibration, the estimation of model parameters based on fitting the model to experimental data, is among the first steps in many applications of process-based models and has an important impact on simulated values. We propose a novel method of developing guidelines for calibration of process-based models, based on development of recommendations for calibration of the phenology component of crop models. The approach was based on a multi-model study, where all teams were provided with the same data and asked to return simulations for the same conditions. All teams were asked to document in detail their calibration approach, including choices with respect to criteria for best parameters, choice of parameters to estimate and software. Based on an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the various choices, we propose calibration recommendations that cover a comprehensive list of decisions and that are based on actual practices