Optimizing Radar-Based Rainfall Estimators Using Machine Learning Modles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weather radar research has produced numerous radar-based rainfall estimators based on climate, rainfall intensity, a variety of ground-truthing instruments and sensors (e.g., rain gauges, disdrometers), and techniques. Although each research direction gives improvement, their collective application in an operational sense still yields uncertainty in rainfall estimation at different times. This study aims to explore the concept of implementing Machine Learning (ML) models in choosing the optimal radar-based rainfall estimator from a group of estimators at each bin of a radar scan. The Canadian King City C-Band radar was used with a GEONOR T-200B rain gauge, a total of 263 sample points, to establish a group of polarimetric-based rainfall estimators (R(Z), R(Z, ZDR), R(KDP)). The estimators were used to train three ML models, namely Decision Tree, Random Forest, and Gradient Boost, to choose the optimal rainfall estimators based on radar variables (Z, ZDR, KDP). Data from the Canadian Exeter C-Band radar and a Texas Electronics TE525 tipping bucket gauge at a different location were used to verify the ML models and compare their results to the classic Marshall-Gunn (1952) Z-R relation and the composite estimator produced by Bringi et al. (2011). The results show promising results for the ML models, specifically the Gradient Boost model. These encouraging results need to be further explored with more sample points to further refine the ML mod
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.410 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".