IRO Journals
Journal of Trends in Computer Science and Smart Technology

Hybrid Quantum-Classical Deep Learning Model for Global Cotton Yield Forecasting

Open Access
Published: 14 August, 2026
Pages: 815-837
  • Pooja Purohit , Pooja Purohit
    Department of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science, Thakur College of Engineering and Technology, Mumbai, India
    Department of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science, Thakur College of Engineering and Technology, Mumbai, India
  • Prachi Janrao Prachi Janrao
    Department of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science, Thakur College of Engineering and Technology, Mumbai, India
    Department of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science, Thakur College of Engineering and Technology, Mumbai, India
view PDF
view PDF

How to Cite

Purohit, Pooja, and Prachi Janrao. 2026. “Hybrid Quantum-Classical Deep Learning Model for Global Cotton Yield Forecasting”. Journal of Trends in Computer Science and Smart Technology 8 (3): 815-37. https://doi.org/10.36548/jtcsst.2026.3.019.
ACM ACS APA ABNT Chicago Harvard IEEE MLA Turabian Vancouver AMA

Download Citation

Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

Keywords

Quantum Machine Learning
Parametric Quantum Circuit
Hybrid Quantum-Classical
Cotton Yield Prediction
CNN-BiLSTM
XGBoost
NDVI
FAOSTAT
Crop Forecasting

Abstract

Global cotton yield forecasting is critical for food security planning, supply chain management, and climate adaptation policy, yet remains challenging due to the non-linear interactions among satellite vegetation indices, meteorological variables, and agronomic factors across heterogeneous growing regions. This paper proposes the Hybrid Quantum-Classical Deep Learning (HQC-DL) framework, the first systematic empirical study integrating parametric quantum circuit (PQC)-based feature enhancement into a CNN-BiLSTM and gradient-boosted regression pipeline for global crop yield prediction. When tested on the FAOSTAT-MODIS-CRU dataset with 1,142 country-year observations of 59 countries between 2001 and 2020, the proposed method exhibits RMSE of 0.769±0.004 t/ha and R2 of 0.690± 0.004, and is characterized by the lowest cross-run variance compared to all other neural network architectures, which demonstrates its better prediction stability. The ablation study shows that all architectural stages have a positive contribution: when gradient boosted regressors are trained on features generated via deep learning methods, they show better results than models trained on raw data, regardless of the quantum module, and PQC expressibility analysis proves that the ansatz is capable of exploring a wide range of states in Hilbert space.

References

  1. FAO. ”FAOSTAT Statistical Database.” Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2023.
  2. Biamonte, J., P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd. ”Quantum Machine Learning.” Nature 549, no. 7671 (2017): 195–202.
  3. Mitarai, K., M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii. ”Quantum Circuit Learning.” Physical Review A 98, no. 3 (2018): 032309.
  4. Schuld, M., V. Bergholm, C. Gogolin, J. Izaac, and N. Killoran. ”Evaluating Analytic Gradients on Quantum Hardware.” Physical Review A 99, no. 3 (2019): 032331.
  5. Bergholm, V., J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, N. Killoran, et al. ”PennyLane: Automatic Differentiation of Hybrid Quantum-Classical Computations.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04968, 2018.
  6. Jones, James W., Gerrit Hoogenboom, Cheryl H. Porter, Ken J. Boote, William D. Batchelor, L. Allen Hunt, Paul W. Wilkens, Upendra Singh, Arjan J. Gijsman, and Joe T. Ritchie. ”The DSSAT cropping system model.” European Journal of Agronomy 18, no. 3–4 (2003): 235–265.
  7. Lobell, David B., and Marshall B. Burke. ”On the Use of Statistical Models to Predict Crop Yield Responses to Climate Change.” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150, no. 11 (2010): 1443–1452.
  8. Chen, Tianqi, and Carlos Guestrin. ”XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System.” In proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (2016): 785–794.
  9. van Klompenburg, T., A. Kassahun, and C. Catal. ”Crop Yield Prediction Using Machine Learning: A Systematic Literature Review.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 177 (2020): 105709.
  10. Sim, S., P. D. Johnson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik. ”Expressibility and Entangling Capability of Parameterized Quantum Circuits for Hybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms.” Advanced Quantum Technologies2, no. 12 (2019): 1900070.
  11. Akiba, T., S. Sano, T. Yanase, T. Ohta, and M. Koyama. ”Optuna: A Next-Generation Hyperparameter Optimization Framework.” Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (2019): 2623–2631.
  12. Bowles, J., S. Ahmed, and M. Schuld. ”Better than Classical? The Subtle Art of Benchmarking Quantum Machine Learning Models.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07059, 2024.
  13. Wilcoxon, F. ”Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods.” Biometrics Bulletin 1, no. 6 (1945): 80–83.
  14. Chlingaryan, A., S. Sukkarieh, and B. Whelan. ”Machine Learning Approaches for Crop Yield Prediction and Nitrogen Status Estimation in Precision Agriculture: A Review.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 151 (2018): 61–69.
  15. Hochreiter, S., and J. Schmidhuber. ”Long Short-Term Memory.” Neural Computation 9, no. 8 (1997): 1735–1780.
  16. Graves, A., and J. Schmidhuber. ”Framewise Phoneme Classification with Bidirectional LSTM and Other Neural Network Architectures.”Neural Networks 18, no. 5–6 (2005): 602–610.
  17. Bhavani, V., Pradeepini G., and Sri Kavya K. Ch. ”Crop Prediction Rate by Continuous Monitoring of Plant Growth and Crop Yield Parameters Using LRNN Algorithm.” Journal of Innovative Image Processing 7, no. 2 (2025): 561–581. https://doi.org/10.36548/jiip.2025.2.014.
  18. Sun, Jie, Liping Di, Ziheng Sun, Yonglin Shen, and Zulong Lai. ”County-Level Soybean Yield Prediction Using Deep CNN-LSTM Model.” Sensors 19, no. 20 (2019): 4363.
  19. Didan, Kamel. ”MOD13A3 MODIS/Terra Vegetation Indices Monthly L3 Global 1km SIN Grid V006.” NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC, 2015. https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD13A3.006.
  20. Cerezo, Marco, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R. McClean et al. ”Variational Quantum Algorithms.” Nature Reviews Physics 3, no. 9 (2021): 625–644.
  21. Preskill, J. ”Quantum Computing in the NISQ Era and Beyond.” Quantum 2 (2018): 79.
  22. Mari, A., T. R. Bromley, J. Izaac, et al. ”Transfer Learning in Hybrid Classical-Quantum Neural Networks.”Quantum 4 (2020): 340.
  23. Thanasilp, Supanut, Samson Wang, Marco Cerezo, and Zoe Holmes. ”Exponential Concentration and Untrainability in Quantum Kernel Methods.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.11060, 2022.
  24. Paszke, Adam, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen et al. ”PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems32 (2019): 8024–8035.
  25. Kingma, Diederik P., and Jimmy Ba. ”Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization.” Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2015. arXiv:1412.6980.