Uncertainty estimation of machine learning spatial precipitation predictions from satellite data
November 13, 2023 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐ Machine Learning: Science and Technology
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Georgia Papacharalampous, Hristos Tyralis, Nikolaos Doulamis, Anastasios Doulamis
arXiv ID
2311.07511
Category
stat.ML: Machine Learning (Stat)
Cross-listed
cs.LG,
physics.ao-ph,
stat.AP,
stat.ME
Citations
6
Venue
Machine Learning: Science and Technology
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
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.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
๐ Similar Papers
In the same crypt โ Machine Learning (Stat)
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
Layer Normalization
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Variational Inference with Normalizing Flows
๐
๐
The Cartographer
Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Optimization Methods for Large-Scale Machine Learning
Died the same way โ ๐ป Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted