Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 40 references

From Rows to Yields: How Foundation Models for Tabular Data Simplify Crop Yield Prediction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a pretrained tabular foundation model, TabPFN, run in a single default forward pass without feature engineering or hyperparameter tuning, produces sub-national summer crop yield forecasts for South Africa whose…

desk verdict First rigorous TabPFN-vs-tuned-ML benchmark for sub-national yield forecasting, with an honest compute story; the 'comparable accuracy' claim outruns the statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19046 v1 pith:WVWPOBYB submitted 2025-06-23 cs.AI

Filip Sabo , Michele Meroni , Maria Piles , Martin Claverie , Fanie Ferreira , Elna Van Den Berg , Francesco Collivignarelli , Felix Rembold This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords cropyieldforecastingTabPFNtabularfoundationmodelsingleforwardpassmachinelearningSouthAfricasub-nationalEarthobservation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a pretrained foundation model for tabular data, TabPFN, can replace a heavily engineered machine-learning pipeline for sub-national crop yield forecasting without losing accuracy. Using 23 years of province-level maize, soybean, and sunflower yields in South Africa and monthly aggregates of satellite and weather variables, the authors find that a single default forward pass of TabPFN produces errors statistically indistinguishable from the best tuned ML model among 96 pipeline configurations, while taking about 360 seconds on 4 CPUs instead of 14 days on a computing cluster. The practical point is that operational forecasters, especially in data-scarce countries, could get near-best accuracy with almost no feature engineering, hyperparameter tuning, or model selection. The load-bearing caveat is that a single maize-specific crop mask was used to aggregate predictors for all three crops. This is a new-application demonstration, not a new model claim.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is TabPFN, a transformer-based prior-data fitted network pretrained on millions of synthetic tabular datasets so that it performs in-context learning at inference: given a new small table of rows and labels it produces predictions in a single forward pass without gradient updates. The paper feeds it a flat table of province-level monthly aggregates of FAPAR, soil moisture, air temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation over the October-May growing season, plus a categorical province code and a Theil-Sen yield trend estimate, and compares the result with a nested leave-one-year-out cross-validation pipeline that selects among feature sets, optional PCA or MRMR reductions, and hyperparameters. The load-bearing property is that TabPFN's default mode requires none of those engineering steps, yet its raw-feature input is still competitive.

What would settle it

Re-run the hindcast for soybeans and sunflowers using crop-specific masks or official planted-area weights for each province; if TabPFN's rRMSEp gap to the best ML model becomes statistically significant (Tukey's HSD, p=0.05), the comparable-accuracy claim for those crops is an artifact of the maize mask rather than a property of the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In its own terms, the paper's discovery is a cost-performance collapse: TabPFN, run with default settings in a single forward pass, yields hindcast errors that are not significantly different from the best of six machine-learning models (GPR, SVR variants, XGBoost, GBR, Random Forest, LASSO) tuned across 96 feature, selection, and reduction configurations. For maize the relative root-mean-square error normalized by mean yield (rRMSEp) was 8.9% for TabPFN versus 7.39% for the best ML model; for soybeans 15.1% versus 13.51%; for sunflowers 15.04% versus 13.59%. ANOVA with Tukey's HSD found no statistically significant difference among TabPFN, the post-hoc-ensembled TabPFN PHE, and the best ML models for maize and soybeans, and no significant differences among any models for sunflowers. The paper also reports an operational 2024 forecast in which TabPFN and the tuned ML model tracked the official country-level estimates to within about 10% for maize and 22% for soybeans. Its conclusion is that TabPFN and ML exhibit comparable accuracy while TabPFN is far cheaper to run and simpler to set up.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the single maize-specific crop mask used to aggregate predictors adequately represents where soybeans and sunflowers are grown; if it does not, the input features for those two crops carry extra noise, which could mask true accuracy differences between TabPFN and tuned ML.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Yearly recalibration of a yield forecasting system reduces to one forward pass per crop: no feature selection, no PCA or MRMR reduction, and no hyperparameter search.
  • A national or regional forecasting service can run on a laptop-class machine (about 360 seconds on 4 CPUs per crop) rather than a 500-node cluster for 14 days.
  • The accuracy difference between TabPFN and the best tuned ML model is within the statistical noise band for maize and soybeans, so adopting TabPFN should not cost forecast skill.
  • For a crop with low yield variability and aggregated predictors (sunflowers), no model separates from the baselines, so simple baselines may suffice in that regime.
  • Built-in uncertainty intervals and SHAP feature importance come with the default TabPFN run, providing calibration and explainability for early-warning users.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the same single-forward-pass behavior persists in the planned multi-country African rollout, the binding constraint for operational forecasting shifts from modelling skill and compute to the mere existence of a minimum time series of official yield statistics and open environmental data.
  • A crop-specific mask test would sharpen the claim: the sunflower null result (no differences among any models) is consistent with uninformative aggregated features, and the paper's own explanation admits that the maize-specific mask is suboptimal for the other crops.
  • TabPFN's speed opens a use case the paper does not test: high-frequency within-season forecast updates (for example, weekly or dekadal revisions) that would be impractical with a 14-day cluster tuning pipeline.
  • The fact that the ensembled PHE variant did not beat the default single pass suggests the pretrained model already internalizes model averaging; if so, deployment can stay with the simplest setting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper evaluates TabPFN, a transformer-based foundation model for tabular data, for sub-national yield forecasting of maize, soybeans, and sunflower in South Africa, using monthly aggregated Earth-observation (FAPAR, soil moisture) and weather variables from the ASAP system. It compares TabPFN in its default single-forward-pass mode and in a post-hoc ensemble (PHE) mode against six ML models and three baselines under nested leave-one-year-out cross-validation, and also presents an operational forecast for the 2024 season compared with official CEC estimates. The reported point estimates are rRMSEp of 8.9% (maize), 15.1% (soybeans), and 15.04% (sunflower) for default TabPFN, versus 7.39%, 13.51%, and 13.59% for the best tuned ML configurations. The paper concludes that TabPFN and ML models have comparable accuracy, with TabPFN being far faster and simpler, and therefore a strong candidate for operational yield forecasting in resource-limited settings.

Significance. If the central equivalence claim were well supported, the paper would provide a valuable practical result: a generic foundation model could replace a heavily tuned, computationally expensive ML pipeline for sub-national yield forecasting, with large savings in setup time and compute. The study is grounded in a real operational setting, uses a principled nested cross-validation design, makes code available, and is transparent about data limitations. The comparison is externally anchored by official CEC yield statistics and an actual 2024 forecast exercise, which are strengths. However, the statistical analysis used to claim 'comparable accuracy' is not adequate, and one supporting claim is explicitly backed only by 'data not shown'. These issues affect the paper's main practical conclusion, so the manuscript needs revision before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5 Model evaluation; §6 Results and discussion] The ANOVA/Tukey HSD analysis in §5 and the conclusion in §6 rest on treating the 22 per-year rRMSEp values per model as independent observations. Because the same provinces and the same observed yields are reused across models for each left-out year, the per-year errors are correlated within a year, and one-way ANOVA has low power with n=22 per group. A non-significant ANOVA/Tukey result is therefore not positive evidence that TabPFN and the tuned ML pipeline have comparable accuracy. The point estimates actually show a consistent degradation: TabPFN rRMSEp is 8.9% vs 7.39% for maize, 15.1% vs 13.51% for soybeans, and 15.04% vs 13.59% for sunflowers (relative increases of roughly 20%, 12%, and 11%). I recommend replacing the ANOVA with a paired equivalence test on the per-year differences (e.g., two one-sided tests with a pre-specified equivalence bound) or a mixed-effects model with year as a random effect, and reporting the confidence interval for the mean difference. The 'comparable accuracy' conclusion in the abstract and §7 is not currently supported.
  2. [§6 Results and discussion] The sentence 'its accuracy is also equivalent for in-season forecasts and better for end of the season forecasts compared with ML (data not shown)' makes a quantitative claim about end-of-season performance that is not shown anywhere in the manuscript. This is a load-bearing part of the argument for TabPFN's 'superior practical utility' and should either be backed by the actual comparison (e.g., a figure or table analogous to Fig. 3 for a later forecast date) or removed. As written, the claim is unverifiable.
  3. [§2 Study area and data] The aggregation of FAPAR, soil moisture, and weather predictors using a maize-specific WorldCereal crop mask for soybeans and sunflowers is acknowledged as suboptimal, but the potential impact on the benchmark is not assessed. If the maize mask systematically misrepresents soybean and sunflower growing areas, the input features for those crops contain additional noise that could shrink the measured accuracy gap between TabPFN and the tuned ML models; this may also explain the absence of any significant differences for sunflowers. I suggest a sensitivity test with a generic cropland mask (or no mask) to show that the conclusion of comparable accuracy for soybeans and sunflowers is robust to the aggregation definition.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5 Model evaluation] The text says 'Turkey’s Honestly Significant Difference'; the proper name is 'Tukey’s'. Please correct this typo.
  2. [§1 Introduction] The phrase 'we evaluated for the time the TabPFN model' appears to be a typo for 'for the first time'; please fix it.
  3. [Figure 3] The figure caption uses 'rRMSE' while the text uses 'rRMSEp'; please unify the notation and specify clearly whether the error bars are the standard deviation across left-out years or across provinces.
  4. [§6 Results and discussion] The operational 2024 comparison reports 'average percentage difference of 10% for maize and 22% for soybeans' without specifying the reference forecast (e.g., CEC March) or the set of provinces; a small table or a precise definition would make the comparison reproducible.
  5. [Table 2] The set names such as 'RS Met SM' and 'maxRS Met-' are difficult to parse; an explicit legend mapping each set to the included variables would improve readability.
  6. [Figure 2 caption] The word 'hyperaparameter' is a typo for 'hyperparameter'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central comparison is an empirical benchmark of an externally pretrained model against independently evaluated ML pipelines and official CEC yield statistics.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that TabPFN, used in its default single-forward-pass mode, achieves accuracy comparable to a tuned ML pipeline for sub-national crop yield forecasting. This claim is evaluated empirically against official CEC yield statistics and open EO/weather data, not derived from the paper's own equations or fitted constants. TabPFN is an externally developed foundation model (Prior Labs), and the ML comparators, although drawn from the authors' ASAP pipeline (refs 10, 23), are fitted and assessed in a nested leave-one-year-out design against the same official labels. Neither the TabPFN predictions nor the ML errors are used to define one another, and no parameter is fitted to a subset and then renamed as a prediction. The yield trend, WorldCereal mask, and feature aggregation are data-preprocessing choices, not circular inputs that force the outcome. The self-citations to the ASAP pipeline and prior ML studies are contextual and do not carry the load of the main result; they describe the comparator system rather than presuppose TabPFN's performance. Possible statistical concerns about ANOVA on correlated per-year errors are validity issues, not circularity. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation-chain reduction is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities are introduced; the central claim rests on the listed domain assumptions about data quality, the crop mask, aggregation, and validation protocol. Model hyperparameters are tuned in an inner loop but are not ad hoc constants introduced to force a result.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CEC final yield statistics are accurate and free of systematic bias
    The official 'final figures' from the South African Crop Estimates Committee are used as ground truth labels; if they are biased, every model comparison is affected. The paper takes these values as the target without independent verification.
  • domain assumption The maize crop mask is an adequate proxy for soybean and sunflower growing areas
    Section 2 states 'As crop type specific crop masks are not available for all the three crops, we used the one from the WorldCereal project for maize. Although suboptimal for soybeans and sunflower, it is a pragmatic compromise.' The paper relies on this for the predictor aggregation for two of three crops.
  • domain assumption Province-level monthly aggregation preserves the yield-relevant environmental signal
    Dekadal time series are collapsed into monthly means, maxima, minima, and sums per province, assuming no sub-monthly or sub-province heterogeneity is decisive for forecasting skill.
  • domain assumption Leave-one-year-out evaluation with 23 years gives a reliable estimate of generalization
    With at most 23 left-out years per crop, statistical power is limited; the ANOVA for sunflowers found no significant differences among any models, which the authors attribute partly to low variability.
  • domain assumption TabPFN's pretrained prior transfers to agricultural tabular data
    The evaluation assumes that a transformer pretrained on synthetic tabular datasets can represent province-level agro-meteorological features; the paper treats this as given and only measures end-to-end accuracy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Rows to Yields: How Foundation Models for Tabular Data Simplify Crop Yield Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WVWPOBYB

@misc{pith2026250619046,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Rows to Yields: How Foundation Models for Tabular Data Simplify Crop Yield Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WVWPOBYB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19046}
}
read the original abstract

We present an application of a foundation model for small- to medium-sized tabular data (TabPFN), to sub-national yield forecasting task in South Africa. TabPFN has recently demonstrated superior performance compared to traditional machine learning (ML) models in various regression and classification tasks. We used the dekadal (10-days) time series of Earth Observation (EO; FAPAR and soil moisture) and gridded weather data (air temperature, precipitation and radiation) to forecast the yield of summer crops at the sub-national level. The crop yield data was available for 23 years and for up to 8 provinces. Covariate variables for TabPFN (i.e., EO and weather) were extracted by region and aggregated at a monthly scale. We benchmarked the results of the TabPFN against six ML models and three baseline models. Leave-one-year-out cross-validation experiment setting was used in order to ensure the assessment of the models capacity to forecast an unseen year. Results showed that TabPFN and ML models exhibit comparable accuracy, outperforming the baselines. Nonetheless, TabPFN demonstrated superior practical utility due to its significantly faster tuning time and reduced requirement for feature engineering. This renders TabPFN a more viable option for real-world operation yield forecasting applications, where efficiency and ease of implementation are paramount.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19046 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the summer cropland distribution in South Africa. Cropland percentage cover sourced from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparative performance (average rRMSE and standard deviation) of the benchmark, machine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. SHAP values sorted by the most important features for a) maize and b) soybeans. Feature names are based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ML and TabPFN early April 2024 soybeans yield forecasts over the main producing provinces compared to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nakalembe, C. et al. A review of satellite-based global agricultural monitoring systems available for Africa. Global Food Security 29, 100543 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Becker-Reshef, I. et al. Strengthening agricultural decisions in countries at risk of food insecurity: The GEOGLAM Crop Monitor for Early Warning. REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT (2020) doi:10.1016/j.rse.2019.111553

    work page arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    & Liu, L

    Basso, B. & Liu, L. Chapter Four - Seasonal crop yield forecast: Methods, applications, and accuracies. in Advances in Agronomy (ed. Sparks, D. L.) vol. 154 201–255 (Academic Press, 2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    & Gornott, C

    Schauberger, B., Jägermeyr, J. & Gornott, C. A systematic review of local to regional yield forecasting approaches and frequently used data resources. European Journal of Agronomy 120, 126153 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Cao, J. et al. Wheat yield predictions at a county and field scale with deep learning, machine learning, and google earth engine. European Journal of Agronomy 123, 126204 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Kang, Y. et al. Comparative assessment of environmental variables and machine learning algorithms for maize yield prediction in the US Midwest. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 064005 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Lee, D. et al. Contrasting performance of panel and time-series data models for subnational crop forecasting in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 359, 110213 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Lee, D. et al. Maize yield forecasts for Sub-Saharan Africa using Earth Observation data and machine learning. Global Food Security 33, 100643 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Mateo-Sanchis, A. et al. Interpretable Long Short-Term Memory Networks for Crop Yield Estimation. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters 20, 1–5 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    & Rembold, F

    Meroni, M., Waldner, F., Seguini, L., Kerdiles, H. & Rembold, F. Yield forecasting with machine learning and small data: What gains for grains? Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 308–309, 108555 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Paudel, D. et al. Machine learning for large-scale crop yield forecasting. Agricultural Systems 187, 103016 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    R., Marcos, D., de Wit, A., Boogaard, H

    Paudel, D. R., Marcos, D., de Wit, A., Boogaard, H. & Athanasiadis, I. N. A weakly supervised framework for high-resolution crop yield forecasts. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.09016 (2022)

    2022 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    & Kerner, H

    Nakalembe, C. & Kerner, H. Considerations for AI-EO for agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Environ. Res. Lett. 18, 041002 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    & Varoquaux, G

    Grinsztajn, L., Oyallon, E. & Varoquaux, G. Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on typical tabular data? in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 507–520 (Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Random Forests

    Breiman, L. Random Forests. Machine Learning 45, 5–32 (2001)

    2001

  8. [16]

    Rasmussen, C. E. & Williams, C. K. I. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. (The MIT Press, 2005). doi:10.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001

    2005 doi

  9. [17]

    Vapnik, V., Golowich, S. E. & Smola, A. Support vector method for function approximation, regression estimation and signal processing. in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 281–287 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996)

    1996

  10. [18]

    V., Ershov, V

    Dorogush, A. V., Ershov, V. & Gulin, A. CatBoost: gradient boosting with categorical features support. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.11363 (2018)

    2018 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    & Guestrin, C

    Chen, T. & Guestrin, C. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 785–794 (2016). doi:10.1145/2939672.2939785

    2016

  12. [20]

    Friedman, J. H. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. The Annals of Statistics 29, 1189–1232 (2001)

    2001

  13. [21]

    & Gornott, C

    Laudien, R., Schauberger, B., Makowski, D. & Gornott, C. Robustly forecasting maize yields in Tanzania based on climatic predictors. Sci Rep 10, 19650 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    & Gornott, C

    Laudien, R., Schauberger, B., Waid, J. & Gornott, C. A forecast of staple crop production in Burkina Faso to enable early warnings of shortages in domestic food availability. Sci Rep 12, 1638 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    & Rembold, F

    Sabo, F., Meroni, M., Waldner, F. & Rembold, F. Is deeper always better? Evaluating deep learning models for yield forecasting with small data. Environ Monit Assess 195, 1153 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    & Hutter, F

    Hollmann, N., Müller, S., Eggensperger, K. & Hutter, F. TabPFN: A Transformer That Solves Small Tabular Classification Problems in a Second. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.01848 (2023)

    2023 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    P., Grabocka, J

    Müller, S., Hollmann, N., Arango, S. P., Grabocka, J. & Hutter, F. Transformers Can Do Bayesian Inference. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.10510 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hollmann, N. et al. Accurate predictions on small data with a tabular foundation model. Nature 637, 319–326 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Erickson, N. et al. AutoGluon-Tabular: Robust and Accurate AutoML for Structured Data. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2003.06505 (2020)

    2020 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    https://www.wfp.org/publications/global-report-food-crises-grfc (2024)

    Global Report on Food Crises (GRFC) 2024 | World Food Programme. https://www.wfp.org/publications/global-report-food-crises-grfc (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    & Justice, C

    Becker-Reshef, I., Vermote, E., Lindeman, M. & Justice, C. A generalized regression-based model for forecasting winter wheat yields in Kansas and Ukraine using MODIS data. Remote Sensing of Environment 114, 1312–1323 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    Meza, I. et al. Drought risk for agricultural systems in South Africa: Drivers, spatial patterns, and implications for drought risk management. Science of The Total Environment 799, 149505 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    & Zhang, N

    Bernardi, M., Delince, J., Durand, W. & Zhang, N. Crop Yield Forecasting: Methodological and Institutional Aspects. (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Meroni, M. et al. The warning classification scheme of ASAP – Anomaly hot Spots of Agricultural Production, v8.0. JRC Publications Repository https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC140585 (2025) doi:10.2760/6814458

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    Rembold, F. et al. New Functionalities and Regional/National Use Cases of the Anomaly Hotspots of Agricultural Production (ASAP) Platform. Remote Sensing 15, 4284 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Van Tricht, K. et al. WorldCereal: a dynamic open-source system for global-scale, seasonal, and reproducible crop and irrigation mapping. Earth System Science Data 15, 5491–5515 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Seguini, L. et al. Global near real-time 500 m 10-day FPAR dataset from MODIS and VIIRS for operational agricultural monitoring and crop yield forecasting. Earth System Science Data Discussions 1–36 (2025) doi:10.5194/essd-2025-287

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/datasets/satellite-soil-moisture?tab=overview

    Soil moisture gridded data from 1978 to present. https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/datasets/satellite-soil-moisture?tab=overview

    1978

  29. [37]

    Funk, C. et al. The climate hazards infrared precipitation with stations—a new environmental record for monitoring extremes. Sci Data 2, 150066 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Muschalik, M. et al. shapiq: Shapley Interactions for Machine Learning. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.01649 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    & Ding, C

    Peng, H., Long, F. & Ding, C. Feature selection based on mutual information criteria of max- dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 27, 1226–1238 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    Soille, P. et al. A versatile data-intensive computing platform for information retrieval from big geospatial data. Future Generation Computer Systems 81, 30–40 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.