Deep-learning-based precipitation observation quality control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a novel approach for the automated quality control (QC) of precipitation for a sparse station observation network within the complex terrain of British Columbia, Canada. Our QC approach uses Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) to classify bad observation values, incorporating a multi-classifier ensemble to achieve better QC performance. We train CNNs using human QC’d labels from 2016 to 2017 with gridded precipitation and elevation analyses as inputs. Based on the classification evaluation metrics, our QC approach shows reliable and robust performance across different geographical environments (e.g., coastal and inland mountains), with 0.927 Area Under Curve (AUC) and type I/type II error lower than 15%. Based on the saliency-map-based interpretation studies, we explain the success of CNN-based QC by showing that it can capture the precipitation patterns around, and upstream of the station locations. This automated QC approach is an option for eliminating bad observations for various applications, including the pre-processing of training datasets for machine learning. It can be used in conjunction with human QC to improve upon what could be accomplished with either method alone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".