Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 61 references

A survey groups data-driven soil moisture models into five categories for regression and classification tasks.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-27 01:47 UTC pith:CRYPWRK3

load-bearing objection This is a standard literature survey that sorts soil moisture AI methods into five familiar categories without new methods, tests, or deep synthesis. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.18316 v1 pith:CRYPWRK3 submitted 2026-06-16 cs.LG

A Survey on Data-Driven Models for Soil Moisture Regression and Classification

Ilektra Tsimpidi , George Georgoulas , Vidya Sumathy , George Nikolakopoulos This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords soil moisturedata-driven modelsmachine learningdeep learningregressionclassificationsurveyenvironmental modeling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper surveys artificial intelligence methods that estimate or classify soil moisture from environmental variables as flexible alternatives to physics-based hydrological models. It organizes the literature into five groups: statistical time-series models, geostatistical methods, classical machine learning models, deep learning models, and probabilistic or Bayesian methods. These approaches draw on historical moisture records, meteorological data, vegetation indices, topography, soil properties, and location information. The organization aims to help readers navigate the range of empirical techniques available for a complex spatiotemporal problem with limited ground observations.

Core claim

This work presents a structured survey of AI-based models for soil moisture estimation and classification. Existing approaches are organized into five categories: statistical time-series models, geostatistical methods, classical machine learning models, deep learning models, and probabilistic/Bayesian methods. These models leverage historical soil moisture records, meteorological variables, vegetation indices, topography, soil characteristics, and geolocation data to perform regression or classification tasks.

What carries the argument

The five-category taxonomy that organizes data-driven approaches for soil moisture regression and classification.

Load-bearing premise

The five listed categories provide a complete and useful organization of the data-driven approaches in the literature.

What would settle it

A soil moisture model published after the survey that uses data-driven methods but fits none of the five categories.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Data-driven methods can scale to large areas where physics-based models become computationally expensive.
  • Models in each category can be compared for accuracy when ground observations are sparse.
  • Diverse input sources such as vegetation indices and topography improve empirical predictions.
  • Probabilistic methods offer uncertainty estimates alongside point predictions for moisture values.
  • Classification tasks become feasible when continuous regression data are unavailable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The taxonomy may guide selection of models for new regions with different data availability.
  • Future work could test whether hybrid models that combine categories outperform single-category approaches.
  • The survey implies that limited ground truth data remains the main bottleneck even for advanced learning methods.
  • Applications in agriculture or drought monitoring could adopt the categorized methods for operational forecasting.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a survey paper that presents a structured overview of AI-based data-driven models for soil moisture estimation (regression) and classification tasks. It organizes the literature into five categories—statistical time-series models, geostatistical methods, classical machine learning models, deep learning models, and probabilistic/Bayesian methods—while noting their use of inputs such as historical SM records, meteorological variables, vegetation indices, topography, soil characteristics, and geolocation data as alternatives to physics-based hydrological models.

Significance. If the categorization proves comprehensive and the reviewed works representative, the survey could provide a useful organizing framework for the growing body of empirical methods in environmental machine learning and hydrology, helping researchers identify scalable alternatives to computationally intensive physics-based approaches.

major comments (2)
  1. [Categorization (as described in abstract and survey structure sections)] The central claim rests on the five-category organization being complete and useful, yet the manuscript provides no explicit rationale, decision criteria, or discussion of boundary cases and overlaps (e.g., between classical ML and DL or between geostatistical and probabilistic methods), which weakens the framework's applicability.
  2. [Literature review methodology (implied in survey scope description)] No search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, database sources, or temporal scope for paper selection is stated, so it is impossible to assess whether the reviewed methods adequately represent the state of the field or introduce selection bias.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a minor numbering inconsistency: after '(b) geostatistical methods' the next item is labeled '(c)' without a separating comma or period, which should be corrected for clarity.
  2. [Abstract and introduction] Notation for the five categories could be made more consistent (e.g., always using parallel phrasing and explicit separators) to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our survey manuscript. The feedback identifies areas where additional detail would strengthen the presentation of the categorization framework and the literature selection process. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Categorization (as described in abstract and survey structure sections)] The central claim rests on the five-category organization being complete and useful, yet the manuscript provides no explicit rationale, decision criteria, or discussion of boundary cases and overlaps (e.g., between classical ML and DL or between geostatistical and probabilistic methods), which weakens the framework's applicability.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from an explicit rationale for the five-category structure. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated paragraph in the survey structure section that states the decision criteria: categories are defined by primary methodological paradigm (temporal autocorrelation for statistical time-series models, spatial interpolation for geostatistical methods, tabular feature-based supervised learning for classical ML, representation learning for DL, and explicit uncertainty modeling for probabilistic/Bayesian methods). We will also note boundary cases and overlaps, for example that many DL models extend classical ML architectures and that geostatistical techniques such as kriging contain probabilistic components. These additions will clarify the framework without altering the existing organization. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Literature review methodology (implied in survey scope description)] No search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, database sources, or temporal scope for paper selection is stated, so it is impossible to assess whether the reviewed methods adequately represent the state of the field or introduce selection bias.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the current text does not describe the literature search process. We will expand the survey scope description to include the following details: searches were performed in Google Scholar and Web of Science using combinations of keywords ('soil moisture' AND ('machine learning' OR 'deep learning' OR 'time series' OR 'geostatistics' OR 'Bayesian')); the temporal scope covers peer-reviewed publications from 2010 to 2023; inclusion criteria require studies that apply data-driven models to SM regression or classification using at least one of the listed input variables; exclusion criteria omit purely physics-based models and non-peer-reviewed preprints. This information will be added in the revised manuscript to allow readers to evaluate representativeness and potential bias. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; purely descriptive survey

full rationale

This is a literature survey that organizes prior work into five categories without any derivations, predictions, fitted parameters, or load-bearing claims that reduce to self-definitions or self-citations. The central contribution is descriptive taxonomy of existing methods; no equations or results are advanced that could be circular by construction. Self-citations, if present, are not used to justify uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The work is self-contained as a review and scores at the low end of the expected range for non-derivational papers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Survey paper with no new derivations or models; relies entirely on prior published literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5703 in / 909 out tokens · 33969 ms · 2026-06-27T01:47:38.192198+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Survey on Data-Driven Models for Soil Moisture Regression and Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CRYPWRK3

@misc{pith2026260618316,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Survey on Data-Driven Models for Soil Moisture Regression and Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CRYPWRK3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.18316}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Soil Moisture (SM) modelling constitutes a complex spatiotemporal learning problem characterised by nonlinear environmental interactions, heterogeneous data sources, and limited ground observations. Physics-based approaches, such as water balance models, rely on explicit hydrological equations and high-quality inputs, but their computational cost and scalability limitations restrict large-scale deployment. Data-driven artificial intelligence (AI) methods have emerged as flexible alternatives, enabling the extraction of empirical relationships between soil moisture and environmental variables with reduced modelling assumptions. This work presents a structured survey of AI-based models for soil moisture estimation and classification. Existing approaches are organized into five categories: (a) statistical time-series models, (b) geostatistical methods (c) classical machine learning (ML) models, (d) Deep Learning (DL) models and (e) Probabilistic/Bayesian methods. These models leverage historical soil moisture records, meteorological variables, vegetation indices, topography, soil characteristics, and geolocation data to perform regression or classification tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.18316 by George Georgoulas, George Nikolakopoulos, Ilektra Tsimpidi, Vidya Sumathy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spatial variation of soil moisture over a grass-covered field in Luleå, Swe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Pipeline for data-driven soil moisture modelling, from data acquisition and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Diagram with the categorisation of this survey’s data-driven models 3.1 Statistical Time-Series Models A statistical time-series model is a data-driven model that assumes the observed data are generated by a random process and describes the relationship between dependent and independent variables, solving an optimisation problem [10]. The main advantages of statistical modelling include interpretability, r… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    An Introductory Study on Time Series Modeling and Forecasting

    Adhikari, R., Agrawal, R.K.: An introductory study on time series modeling and forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1302.6613 (2013) 10 I.Tsimpidi et al. Table 1: Summary of Data-Driven Models for Soil Moisture Model Input Output ARIMA[1] Past observation errors Forecast future values (R) Cluster- ARIMA[51] Clusters of past observations Predict soil respirat...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    Frontiers in Soil Science5, 1612908 (2025)

    Alahmad, T., Neményi, M., Széles, A., Ali, N., Hijazi, O., Nyéki, A.: Spatiotem- poral prediction of soil moisture content at various depths in three soil types using machine learning algorithms. Frontiers in Soil Science5, 1612908 (2025)

    2025

  3. [3]

    Computer Communications151, 495–517 (2020)

    Amanullah, M.A., Habeeb, R.A.A., Nasaruddin, F.H., Gani, A., Ahmed, E., Nainar, A.S.M., Akim, N.M., Imran, M.: Deep learning and big data technolo- gies for iot security. Computer Communications151, 495–517 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    In: 2022 IEEE Interna- tional IOT, Electronics and Mechatronics Conference (IEMTRONICS)

    Balasooriya, S., Nguyen, C., Kavalchuk, I., Yasakethu, L.: Forecasting model com- parison for soil moisture to obtain optimal plant growth. In: 2022 IEEE Interna- tional IOT, Electronics and Mechatronics Conference (IEMTRONICS). pp. 1–7. IEEE (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    John Wiley & Sons (2015)

    Box, G.E., Jenkins, G.M., Reinsel, G.C., Ljung, G.M.: Time series analysis: fore- casting and control. John Wiley & Sons (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Machine learning45(1), 5–32 (2001)

    Breiman, L.: Random forests. Machine learning45(1), 5–32 (2001)

    2001

  7. [7]

    Journal of hydrology593, 125840 (2021)

    Carranza, C., Nolet, C., Pezij, M., van der Ploeg, M.: Root zone soil moisture estimation with random forest. Journal of hydrology593, 125840 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Remote sensing14(21), 5584 (2022)

    Celik, M.F., Isik, M.S., Yuzugullu, O., Fajraoui, N., Erten, E.: Soil moisture predic- tion from remote sensing images coupled with climate, soil texture and topography via deep learning. Remote sensing14(21), 5584 (2022)

    2022

  9. [9]

    John Wiley & Sons (2015)

    Cressie, N.: Statistics for spatial data. John Wiley & Sons (2015)

    2015

  10. [10]

    Davison, A.C.: Statistical models, vol. 11. Cambridge university press (2003)

    2003

  11. [11]

    In: Spatial statistics and computational methods, pp

    Diggle, P.J., Ribeiro Jr, P.J., Christensen, O.F.: An introduction to model-based geostatistics. In: Spatial statistics and computational methods, pp. 43–86. Springer (2003)

    2003

  12. [12]

    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health20(2), 1374 (2023)

    Fu, R., Xie, L., Liu, T., Zheng, B., Zhang, Y., Hu, S.: A soil moisture prediction model, based on depth and water balance equation: A case study of the xilin- gol league grassland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health20(2), 1374 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    Frontiers in Forests and Global Change7, 1353011 (2024)

    Geng, X., et al.: Enhancing data-driven soil moisture modeling with physically- guided lstm networks. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change7, 1353011 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2024.1353011

    work page doi:10.3389/ffgc.2024.1353011 2024

  14. [14]

    Sensors22(20), 8062 (2022)

    Giorgio, A., Del Buono, N., Berardi, M., Vurro, M., Vivaldi, G.A.: Soil moisture sensor information enhanced by statistical methods in a reclaimed water irrigation framework. Sensors22(20), 8062 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16231 (2025)

    Hagar, L., Martin, A.J.: An efficient framework for robust sample size determina- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16231 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    In: Remote Sensing in Precision Agriculture, pp

    Hilal, A., Bangroo, S.A., Kirmani, N.A., Wani, J.A., Biswas, A., Bhat, M.I., Fa- rooq, K., Bashir, O., Shah, T.I.: Geostatistical modeling—a tool for predictive soil mapping. In: Remote Sensing in Precision Agriculture, pp. 389–418. Elsevier (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    In: 3rd International Conference on Applied Mathematics, Modelling, and Intelligent Computing (CAMMIC 2023)

    Huang, X.: Research on soil moisture prediction based on mechanism analysis and arima model. In: 3rd International Conference on Applied Mathematics, Modelling, and Intelligent Computing (CAMMIC 2023). vol. 12756, pp. 39–44. SPIE (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Plants12(12), 2309 (2023)

    Huang, Y.: Improved svm-based soil-moisture-content prediction model for tea plantation. Plants12(12), 2309 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    In: 2025 IEEE 19th International Conference on Ap- plication of Information and Communication Technologies (AICT)

    Ismail, A., Meqbel, O., Yousef, M., Tayfor, M., Askri, A., Errouissi, R., El Moutaouakil, A.: A cnn-based predictive control framework for autonomous soil moisture management. In: 2025 IEEE 19th International Conference on Ap- plication of Information and Communication Technologies (AICT). pp. 1–4. IEEE (2025) 12 I.Tsimpidi et al

    2025

  20. [20]

    Hydrology and Earth System Sciences27(5), 1173–1199 (2023)

    Kivi, M., Vergopolan, N., Dokoohaki, H.: A comprehensive assessment of in situ and remote sensing soil moisture data assimilation in the apsim model for improv- ing agricultural forecasting across the us midwest. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences27(5), 1173–1199 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Remote Sensing17(14), 2397 (2025)

    Lamichhane, M., Mehan, S., Mankin, K.R.: Soil moisture prediction using remote sensing and machine learning algorithms: A review on progress, challenges, and opportunities. Remote Sensing17(14), 2397 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Journal of hydrology609, 127749 (2022)

    Lee, J., Park, S., Im, J., Yoo, C., Seo, E.: Improved soil moisture estimation: Synergistic use of satellite observations and land surface models over conus based on machine learning. Journal of hydrology609, 127749 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    Catena256, 109079 (2025)

    Liu, H., Hui, S., Zhao, Y., Jiang, Y., Qi, Y., Boyer, E.W., Mello, C.R., Guo, L., Li, H.: Spatiotemporal variability of soil moisture and its influencing factors in a forested catchment with complex terrain. Catena256, 109079 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Journal of Geophysics and Engineering p

    Liu, K., Zhao, Y., Lu, Q., Liu, Q., Sun, J.: Mois-efficientnet: Deep learning-based 3d mapping of root zone soil moisture from gpr data. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering p. gxag007 (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    Water12(11), 3085 (2020)

    Liu, M., Huang, C., Wang, L., Zhang, Y., Luo, X.: Short-term soil moisture fore- casting via gaussian process regression with sample selection. Water12(11), 3085 (2020)

    2020

  26. [26]

    Scientific Data12(1), 1170 (2025)

    Liu, Y., Zha, Y., Ran, G., Zhang, Y., Shi, L.: Smrfr: A global multilayer soil moisture dataset generated using random forest from multi-source data. Scientific Data12(1), 1170 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    Soil Science Society of America Journal67(6), 1647–1656 (2003)

    Martínez-Fernández, J., Ceballos, A.: Temporal stability of soil moisture in a large- field experiment in spain. Soil Science Society of America Journal67(6), 1647–1656 (2003)

    2003

  28. [28]

    Water Resources Research60(2), e2023WR034861 (2024)

    Mondal, S., Mishra, A.: Quantifying the precipitation, evapotranspiration, and soil moisture network’s interaction over global land surface hydrological cycle. Water Resources Research60(2), e2023WR034861 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    Gepreel, K.: Utilising machine learning classification models for meteorological drought monitoring and analysis

    Mumtaz, I., Niaz, R., Sajid, Z., Alameri, A.Q., Ali, Z., A. Gepreel, K.: Utilising machine learning classification models for meteorological drought monitoring and analysis. All Earth37(1), 1–21 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Geomechanics and Geoengineering17(3), 712–726 (2022)

    Navidi, M.N., Seyedmohammadi, J., Seyed Jalali, S.A.: Predicting soil water con- tent using support vector machines improved by meta-heuristic algorithms and remotely sensed data. Geomechanics and Geoengineering17(3), 712–726 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    Science of the Total Environment833, 155066 (2022)

    Nguyen, T.T., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Chang, S.W., Nguyen, D.D., Nguyen, C.T., Zhang, J., Liang, S., Bui, X.T., Hoang, N.B.: A low-cost approach for soil moisture prediction using multi-sensor data and machine learning algorithm. Science of the Total Environment833, 155066 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    Advances in Remote Sensing12(04), 99–122 (2023)

    Ondieki, J., Laneve, G., Marsella, M., Mito, C.: Enhancing surface soil moisture estimation through integration of artificial neural networks machine learning and fusion of meteorological, sentinel-1a and sentinel-2a satellite data. Advances in Remote Sensing12(04), 99–122 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    Journal of Hydrol- ogy651, 132572 (2025)

    Pan, Z., Xu, L., Chen, N.: Combining graph neural network and convolutional lstm network for multistep soil moisture spatiotemporal prediction. Journal of Hydrol- ogy651, 132572 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    Inter- national Journal of Geosciences1(2), 87 (2010)

    Pandey, V., Pandey, P.K.: Spatial and temporal variability of soil moisture. Inter- national Journal of Geosciences1(2), 87 (2010)

    2010

  35. [35]

    Journal of Engineering Research 12(1), 75–85 (2024) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 13

    Rash, A.J.H., Khodakarami, L., Muhedin, D.A., Hamakareem, M.I., Ali, H.F.H.: Spatial modeling of geotechnical soil parameters: Integrating ground-based data, rs technique, spatial statistics and gwr model. Journal of Engineering Research 12(1), 75–85 (2024) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 13

    2024

  36. [36]

    Ecography40(8), 913–929 (2017)

    Roberts, D.R., et al.: Cross-validation strategies for data with temporal, spatial, hierarchical, or phylogenetic structure. Ecography40(8), 913–929 (2017)

    2017

  37. [37]

    Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences22(8), 2725–2749 (2022)

    Salakpi, E.E., Hurley, P.D., Muthoka, J.M., Bowell, A., Oliver, S., Rowhani, P.: A dynamic hierarchical bayesian approach for forecasting vegetation condition. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences22(8), 2725–2749 (2022)

    2022

  38. [38]

    Remote Sensing16(12), 2067 (2024)

    Senanayake, I.P., et al.: Spatial downscaling of satellite-based soil moisture prod- ucts using machine learning techniques: A review. Remote Sensing16(12), 2067 (2024)

    2067

  39. [39]

    Scientific Reports 15(1), 43170 (2025)

    Settu, P., Ramaiah, M.: A data driven comparison of hybrid machine learning tech- niques for soil moisture modeling using remote sensing imagery. Scientific Reports 15(1), 43170 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    Ieee Access11, 13605–13635 (2023)

    Singh, A., Gaurav, K., Sonkar, G.K., Lee, C.C.: Strategies to measure soil mois- ture using traditional methods, automated sensors, remote sensing, and machine learning techniques: review, bibliometric analysis, applications, research findings, and future directions. Ieee Access11, 13605–13635 (2023)

    2023

  41. [41]

    Scientific Reports14(2024)

    Soltani, K., et al.: Enhancing spatial resolution of satellite soil moisture data through stacking ensemble learning techniques. Scientific Reports14(2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    Geoderma Regional25, e00396 (2021)

    Somarathna, P., Searle, R., Gladish, D.W.: Mapping available soil water capac- ity in new south wales, australia using sparse data-an inverse bayesian approach. Geoderma Regional25, e00396 (2021)

    2021

  43. [43]

    European Review of Agri- cultural Economics51(3), 589–616 (2024)

    Storm, H., Heckelei, T., Baylis, K.: Probabilistic programming for embedding the- ory and quantifying uncertainty in econometric analysis. European Review of Agri- cultural Economics51(3), 589–616 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing14, 9899–9912 (2021)

    Tong, C., Wang, H., Magagi, R., Goïta, K., Wang, K.: Spatial gap-filling of smap soil moisture pixels over tibetan plateau via machine learning versus geostatis- tics. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing14, 9899–9912 (2021)

    2021

  45. [45]

    Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences22(4), 1325–1334 (2022)

    Tramblay, Y., Quintana Seguí, P.: Estimating soil moisture conditions for drought monitoring with random forests and a simple soil moisture accounting scheme. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences22(4), 1325–1334 (2022)

    2022

  46. [46]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture212, 108118 (2023)

    Tunçay, T., Alaboz, P., Dengiz, O., Başkan, O.: Application of regression kriging and machine learning methods to estimate soil moisture constants in a semi-arid terrestrial area. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture212, 108118 (2023)

    2023

  47. [47]

    Remote Sensing13(5), 1039 (2021)

    Usowicz, B., Lipiec, J., Łukowski, M., Słomiński, J.: Improvement of spatial inter- polation of precipitation distribution using cokriging incorporating rain-gauge and satellite (smos) soil moisture data. Remote Sensing13(5), 1039 (2021)

    2021

  48. [48]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture232, 110104 (2025)

    Vahidi, M., Shafian, S., Frame, W.H.: Multi-depth soil moisture estimation via 1d convolutional neural networks from drone-mounted ground penetrating radar data. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture232, 110104 (2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    Scientific data8(1), 264 (2021)

    Vergopolan, N., Chaney, N.W., Pan, M., Sheffield, J., Beck, H.E., Ferguson, C.R., Torres-Rojas, L., Sadri, S., Wood, E.F.: Smap-hydroblocks, a 30-m satellite-based soil moisture dataset for the conterminous us. Scientific data8(1), 264 (2021)

    2021

  50. [50]

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences379(2197) (2021)

    Volodina, V., Challenor, P.: The importance of uncertainty quantification in model reproducibility. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences379(2197) (2021)

    2021

  51. [51]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture225, 109315 (2024)

    Wang, G., Su, H., Mo, L., Yi, X., Wu, P.: Forecasting of soil respiration time series via clustered arima. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture225, 109315 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 28, 917–943 (2024)

    Wang, Y., Shi, L., Hu, Y., Hu, X., Song, W., Wang, L.: A comprehensive study of deep learning for soil moisture prediction. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 28, 917–943 (2024). https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-917-2024 14 I.Tsimpidi et al

    work page doi:10.5194/hess-28-917-2024 2024

  53. [53]

    Agricultural Water Management300, 109120 (2024)

    Wang, Y., Zha, Y.: Comparison of transformer, lstm and coupled algo- rithms for soil moisture prediction in shallow-groundwater-level areas with in- terpretability analysis. Agricultural Water Management300, 109120 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2024.109120

    work page doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2024.109120 2024

  54. [54]

    Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions2023, 1–38 (2023)

    Wang, Y., Shi, L., Hu, Y., Hu, X., Song, W., Wang, L.: A comprehensive study of deep learning for soil moisture prediction. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions2023, 1–38 (2023)

    2023

  55. [55]

    Highlights in Science, Engineering and Technology (2023)

    Wen, X., Wei, J., Zhang, J., Yue, J.: Research on soil moisture prediction based on var-arima model. Highlights in Science, Engineering and Technology (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing60, 1–17 (2022)

    Xue, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., Li, H.: Ensemble learning embedded with gaussian process regression for soil moisture estimation: A case study of the continental us. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing60, 1–17 (2022)

    2022

  57. [57]

    Science of the Total Environment 782, 146602 (2021)

    Zhang, L., Liu, Y., Ren, L., Teuling, A.J., Zhang, X., Jiang, S., Yang, X., Wei, L., Zhong, F., Zheng, L.: Reconstruction of esa cci satellite-derived soil moisture using an artificial neural network technology. Science of the Total Environment 782, 146602 (2021)

    2021

  58. [58]

    Information Geography p

    Zhang, M., Zhang, D., Jin, Y., Wan, X., Ge, Y.: Evolution of soil moisture mapping from statistical models to integrated mechanistic and geoscience-aware approaches. Information Geography p. 100005 (2025)

    2025

  59. [60]

    Smart Agricultural Technology p

    Zhang, X., Ram, B., Vullaganti, N., Aderholdt, W., Overby, P., Sun, X.: Soil mois- ture classification using hyperspectral imaging and deep learning models on ground robot vehicles. Smart Agricultural Technology p. 101413 (2025)

    2025

  60. [61]

    Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions4(3), 1185–1214 (2007)

    Zhou, X., Lin, H., Zhu, Q.: Temporal stability of soil moisture spatial variability at two scales and its implication for optimal field monitoring. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions4(3), 1185–1214 (2007)

    2007

  61. [62]

    Springer nature (2021)

    Zhou, Z.H.: Machine learning. Springer nature (2021)

    2021