Demonstrates a model that predicts NDVI for island ecosystems, highlighting the importance of uncertainty measurement.
The unique geographical isolation and climate sensitivity of island ecosystems make them valuable for ecological research. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) is an important indicator when monitoring and evaluating these systems, and its prediction has become a key research focus. However, island NDVI prediction remains uncertain due to a limited understanding of vegetation growth and insufficient high-quality data. Deterministic models fail to capture or quantify such uncertainty, often leading to overfitting. To address this issue, this study proposes an uncertainty prediction model for the island NDVI within a coding–prediction–decoding framework, referred to as a Convolutional Autoencoder–Regularized Bayesian Neural Network (CAE-RBNN). The model integrates a convolutional autoencoder with feature regularization to extract latent NDVI features, aiming to reconcile spatial scale disparities with environmental data, while a Bayesian Neural Network (BNN) quantifies uncertainty arising from limited samples and an incomplete understanding of the process. Finally, Monte Carlo sampling and SHAP analysis evaluate model performance, quantify predictive uncertainty, and enhance interpretability. Experiments on six islands in the Xisha archipelago demonstrate that CAE-RBNN outperforms the Convolutional Neural Network–Recurrent Neural Network (CNN-RNN), the Convolutional Recurrent Neural Network (ConvRNN), Convolutional Long Short-Term Memory (ConvLSTM), and Random Forest (RF). Among them, CAE-RBNN reduces the MAE and MSE of the single-time-step prediction task by 8.40% and 10.69%, respectively, compared with the suboptimal model and decreases them by 16.31% and 22.57%, respectively, in the continuous prediction task. More importantly, it effectively quantifies the uncertainty of different driving forces, thereby improving the reliability of island NDVI predictions influenced by the environment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xiang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: