Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 560

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of CatBoost method for prediction of reference evapotranspiration in humid regions

Huang, Guomin, Wu, Lifeng, Ma, Xin, Zhang, Weiqiang, Fan, Junliang, Yu, Xiang, Zeng, Wenzhi, Zhou, Hanmi·2019·Journal of Hydrology

Abstract

Abstract Accurate estimation of reference evapotranspiration (ET0) is critical for water resource management and irrigation scheduling. This study evaluated the potential of a new machine learning algorithm using gradient boosting on decision trees with categorical features support (i.e., CatBoost) for accurately estimating daily ET0 with limited meteorological data in humid regions of China. Two other commonly used machine learning algorithms, Random Forests (RF) and Support Vector Machine (SVM), were also assessed for comparison. Eight input combinations of daily meteorological data [including both complete and incomplete combinations of solar radiation (Rs), maximum and minimum temperatures (Tmax and Tmin), relative humidity (Hr) and wind speed (U)] from five weather stations during 2001–2015 in South China were applied for model training and testing. The results showed that all the three algorithms could achieve satisfactory accuracy for ET0 estimation in subtropical China using Rs, Tmax and Tmin, or U, Hr, Tmax and Tmin as inputs, under the circumstances of lacking complete meteorological parameters. The increases in testing RMSE and MAPE over training RMSE and MAPE showed positive correlations with the number of input parameters to the machine learning models. For the local models, among the three algorithms, SVM offered the best prediction accuracy and stability with incomplete combinations of meteorological parameters as inputs, while CatBoost performed best with the complete combination of parameters. Patterns of the generalized models were almost the same as the local models, but the former ones showed less than 10% decreases in RMSE or MAPE in comparison with the latter ones. In addition, the computing time and memory usage for data processing of CatBoost were much less than those of RF and SVM. Overall, as a tree-based algorithm, CatBoost made significant improvements in accuracy, stability and computational cost when compared to RF. Therefore, the CatBoost algorithm has a very high potential for ET0 estimation in humid regions of China, and even possibly in other parts of the world with similar humid climates.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.04.085

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Cited by

See all 560

Metadata

Authors
Huang, G., Wu, L., Ma, X., Zhang, W., Fan, J., Yu, X., Zeng, W., & Zhou, H.
Venue
Journal of Hydrology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-07
Volume
574
Pages
1029-1041
ISSN
0022-1694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2942851257
Cited by
560
References
28
FWCI
19.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of CatBoost method for prediction of reference evapotranspiration in humid regions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.04.085
The paper
Huang, G., Wu, L., Ma, X., Zhang, W., Fan, J., Yu, X., Zeng, W., & Zhou, H. (2019). Evaluation of CatBoost method for prediction of reference evapotranspiration in humid regions. Journal of Hydrology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.04.085

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.