mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Comparison of machine learning algorithms for merging gridded satellite and earth-observed precipitation data

arXiv 2301.01252 ↗First posted 17 Dec 2022physics.ao-ph cs.LG stat.APcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Gridded satellite precipitation datasets are useful in hydrological applications as they cover large regions with high density. However, they are not accurate in the sense that they do not agree with ground-based measurements. An established means for improving their accuracy is to correct them by adopting machine learning algorithms. This correction takes the form of a regression problem, in which the ground-based measurements have the role of the dependent variable and the satellite data are the predictor variables, together with topography factors (e.g., elevation). Most studies of this kind involve a limited number of machine learning algorithms, and are conducted for a small region and for a limited time period. Thus, the results obtained through them are of local importance and do not provide more general guidance and best practices. To provide results that are generalizable and to contribute to the delivery of best practices, we here compare eight state-of-the-art machine learning algorithms in correcting satellite precipitation data for the entire contiguous United States and for a 15-year period. We use monthly data from the PERSIANN (Precipitation Estimation from Remotely Sensed Information using Artificial Neural Networks) gridded dataset, together with monthly earth-observed precipitation data from the Global Historical Climatology Network monthly database, version 2 (GHCNm). The results suggest that extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) and random forests are the most accurate in terms of the squared error scoring function. The remaining algorithms can be ordered as follows from the best to the worst: Bayesian regularized feed-forward neural networks, multivariate adaptive polynomial splines (poly-MARS), gradient boosting machines (gbm), multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS), feed-forward neural networks, linear regression.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 122 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Dec 2022.

Builds on

12 of 122 references.

References · 12

  1. 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,120
  2. 2015ranger: A Fast Implementation of Random Forests for High Dimensional Data in C++ and Rcited by 171
  3. 2020Principles and Practice of Explainable Machine Learningcited by 99
  4. 2013Highly comparative time-series analysis: The empirical structure of time series and their methodscited by 30
  5. 2022A review of predictive uncertainty estimation with machine learningcited by 29
  6. 2020Predicting into unknown space? Estimating the area of applicability of spatial prediction modelscited by 28
  7. 2014The Evolution of Boosting Algorithms - From Machine Learning to Statistical Modellingcited by 18
  8. 2020Boosting algorithms in energy research: A systematic reviewcited by 13
  9. 2022A review of machine learning concepts and methods for addressing challenges in probabilistic hydrological post-processing and forecastingcited by 12
  10. 2020Hydrological time series forecasting using simple combinations: Big data testing and investigations on one-year ahead river flow predictabilitycited by 10
  11. 2021Massive feature extraction for explaining and foretelling hydroclimatic time series forecastability at the global scalecited by 7
  12. 2022Time series features for supporting hydrometeorological explorations and predictions in ungauged locations using large datasetscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 3; 2024: 2.

6 papers.