A Comparative Study on Deep Learning-Based: Temperature Prediction Models: Performance Evaluation of CNN, Transformer and Random Forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate short-term temperature prediction is of great significance in fields such as agricultural production and disaster prevention and mitigation. This study aims to explore the performance differences among three models—Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Transformer, and Random Forest (RF)—in short-term temperature prediction tasks, providing a reference for model selection and optimization in meteorological forecasting. Based on the Beijing PM2.5 dataset, the research constructs supervised learning samples through data preprocessing (using the temperature sequence of the past 24 hours as input to predict the temperature at the 25th hour) and trains and evaluates the three models under unified experimental configurations. The results show that all three models can achieve high-precision predictions. Among them, Random Forest performs the best , with significant advantages in error control, noise resistance, and high training efficiency. CNN follows and excels at capturing local short-term fluctuation features. Transformer , although capable of modeling long-range dependencies, performs slightly inferior with the current dataset. The study reveals that traditional machine learning models still have practical value in resource-constrained scenarios, while deep learning models can further improve accuracy when sufficient data is available. Model fusion and the introduction of multiple factors may be future optimization directions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".