An Adaptive Gradient Boosting Model for the Prediction of Rainfall Using ID3 as a Base Estimator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While analyzing the data, it is crucial to choose the model that best matches the circumstance. Many experts in the field of classification and regression have proposed ensemble strategies for tabular data, as well as various approaches to classification and regression problems. In this paper, Gini Index is applied on raw geographical dataset to convert continuous data into discrete dataset. Decision tree algorithm is implemented on resultant discrete dataset, Information Gain is calculated for every attribute and the attribute with highest information gain is the splitting node, applied recursively. Decision tree algorithm implemented predicts the rainfall in Kashmir province with the accuracy of 81.5%. MDL pruning is applied on the resultant decision tree in order to reduce the size & complexity of the Decision tree. Pruning removes segments of the tree that contribute little towards classification; the accuracy is marginally reduced to 81.1%. Furthermore, after the implementation of Decision tree a boosting algorithm: gradient boosting has been implemented on the same set of data using decision tree as a base estimator. It was observed that the overall accuracy of the decision tree got increased to 87.5% after the implementation of gradient boosting model. Thus, the obtained results predict that gradient boosted-DT outperforms all other approaches with the highest accuracy measure and high susceptibility rate in rainfall prediction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".