Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 27, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Reliable crop-yield prediction can support agricultural planning and resource allocation. This study evaluates five regression models for predicting crop yield from environmental, crop-related, and agricultural management variables. The dataset initially contained 1,000,000 observations and ten variables, with 231 observations having negative target values removed during preprocessing. Categorical variables were represented using one-hot encoding, and Boolean variables were converted into binary values. The models considered were multiple linear regression (LR), random-forest regression (RF), decision-tree regression (DT), ridge regression, and lasso regression. Their performance was evaluated using 80:20 and 70:30 training-testing splits based on the coefficient of determination (R-squared), mean squared error (MSE), and root mean squared error (RMSE). Applying an 80:20 split, LR achieved a test R-squared of approximately 0.9130 and a test RMSE of 0.5008. Applying a 70:30 split, lasso regression yielded the highest test R-squared (approximately 0.9131) and the lowest test RMSE (approximately 0.5008), with performance almost identical to LR and ridge regression. DT also showed improved test performance under the 70:30 split, whereas RF exhibited a substantial gap between training and testing performance. These results indicate that the evaluated linear regression model provides competitive baselines for this dataset. Further experimentation, including validation testing, will help determine the models' performance and predictability.