Improving monthly precipitation prediction accuracy using machine learning models: a multi-view stacking learning technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research paper explores the implementation of machine learning (ML) techniques in weather and climate forecasting, with a specific focus on predicting monthly precipitation. The study analyzes the efficacy of six multivariate machine learning models: Decision Tree, Random Forest, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), AdaBoost, XGBoost, and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM). Multivariate time series models incorporating lagged meteorological variables were employed to capture the dynamics of monthly rainfall in Rabat, Morocco, from 1993 to 2018. The models were evaluated based on various metrics, including root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and coefficient of determination (R2). XGBoost showed the highest performance among the six individual models, with an RMSE of 40.8 (mm). In contrast, Decision Tree, AdaBoost, Random Forest, LSTM, and KNN showed relatively lower performances, with specific RMSEs ranging from 47.5 (mm) to 51 (mm). A novel multi-view stacking learning approach is introduced, offering a new perspective on various ML strategies. This integrated algorithm is designed to leverage the strengths of each individual model, aiming to substantially improve the precision of precipitation forecasts. The best results were achieved by combining Decision Tree, KNN, and LSTM to build the meta-base while using XGBoost as the second-level learner. This approach yielded a RMSE of 17.5 millimeters. The results show the potential of the proposed multi-view stacking learning algorithm to refine predictive results and improve the accuracy of monthly precipitation forecasts, setting a benchmark for future research in this field.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".