A robust SMOGN-based framework for season-wise crop yield prediction using outlier-aware regression


Abstract

Agriculture remains a vital sector of the economy, with many people relying on it for livelihood; however, traditional shifting cultivation practices have become increasingly unsustainable due to environmental degradation, soil erosion, and climate vulnerability. Population growth and resource scarcity have further shortened cultivation cycles, reducing productivity and efficiency. This study aims to develop a robust methodology for forecasting crop yields during the growing season by integrating key environmental and agronomic factors to support data-driven crop selection. Various preprocessing steps, including scaling, encoding, outlier detection and treatment, and the Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique for Regression with Gaussian Noise (SMOGN), were applied, followed by 5-fold cross-validation to evaluate model performance. Eight regression models, such as k-nearest neighbors (KNNR), support vector regressor (SVMR), random forest regressor (RFR), decision tree regressor (DTR), artificial neural network regressor (ANNR), extreme gradient boosting regressor (XGBoostR), gradient boosting regressor (GBR), and bagging regressor (BR), were compared using MSE, MAE, RMSE, and R². Among them, XGBoostR and RFR consistently outperformed others, with XGBoostR achieving the lowest MSE (1.73119, 2.10232), MAE (0.48531, 0.49618), RMSE (1.17699, 0.90642), and the highest R² (0.90642, 0.88645) after GridSearchCV tuning. For crop-specific sub-datasets, RFR performed best after interquartile range (IQR) outlier treatment and SMOGN oversampling, achieving test scores of MSE = 0.11072, MAE = 0.20065, RMSE = 0.33095, and an average cross-validation R² of 0.96042, while XGBoostR attained the highest overall accuracy (R² = 0.96831) for the annual crop category.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].