mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Uncertainty estimation of machine learning spatial precipitation predictions from satellite data

arXiv 2311.07511 ↗First posted 13 Nov 2023stat.ML cs.LG physics.ao-phcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Merging satellite and gauge data with machine learning produces high-resolution precipitation datasets, but uncertainty estimates are often missing. We addressed the gap of how to optimally provide such estimates by benchmarking six algorithms, mostly novel even for the more general task of quantifying predictive uncertainty in spatial prediction settings. On 15 years of monthly data from over the contiguous United States (CONUS), we compared quantile regression (QR), quantile regression forests (QRF), generalized random forests (GRF), gradient boosting machines (GBM), light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM), and quantile regression neural networks (QRNN). Their ability to issue predictive precipitation quantiles at nine quantile levels (0.025, 0.050, 0.100, 0.250, 0.500, 0.750, 0.900, 0.950, 0.975), approximating the full probability distribution, was evaluated using quantile scoring functions and the quantile scoring rule. Predictors at a site were nearby values from two satellite precipitation retrievals, namely PERSIANN (Precipitation Estimation from Remotely Sensed Information using Artificial Neural Networks) and IMERG (Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals), and the site's elevation. The dependent variable was the monthly mean gauge precipitation. With respect to QR, LightGBM showed improved performance in terms of the quantile scoring rule by 11.10%, also surpassing QRF (7.96%), GRF (7.44%), GBM (4.64%) and QRNN (1.73%). Notably, LightGBM outperformed all random forest variants, the current standard in spatial prediction with machine learning. To conclude, we propose a suite of machine learning algorithms for estimating uncertainty in spatial data prediction, supported with a formal evaluation framework based on scoring functions and scoring rules.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 84 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Nov 2023.

Builds on

11 of 84 references.

References · 11

  1. 2016Generalized Random Forestscited by 309
  2. 2019A comparison of some conformal quantile regression methodscited by 76
  3. 2018Beyond expectation: Deep joint mean and quantile regression for spatio-temporal problemscited by 32
  4. 2022A review of predictive uncertainty estimation with machine learningcited by 29
  5. 2020Boosting algorithms in energy research: A systematic reviewcited by 13
  6. 2022A review of machine learning concepts and methods for addressing challenges in probabilistic hydrological post-processing and forecastingcited by 12
  7. 2022Comparison of machine learning algorithms for merging gridded satellite and earth-observed precipitation datacited by 6
  8. 2023Merging satellite and gauge-measured precipitation using LightGBM with an emphasis on extreme quantilescited by 5
  9. 2022Comparison of tree-based ensemble algorithms for merging satellite and earth-observed precipitation data at the daily time scalecited by 4
  10. 2023Ensemble learning for blending gridded satellite and gauge-measured precipitation datacited by 3
  11. 2019Quantification of predictive uncertainty in hydrological modelling by harnessing the wisdom of the crowd: Methodology development and investigation using toy modelscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2.

2 papers.