ML4WX

Local & station forecasting

HOW MACHINE LEARNING ALGORITHMS ARE USED IN METEOROLOGICAL DATA CLASSIFICATION: A COMPARATIVE APPROACH BETWEEN DT, LMT, M5-MT, GRADIENT BOOSTING AND GWLM-NARX MODELS

Sheikh Amir Fayaz, Majid Zaman, Muheet Ahmed Butt, Sameer Kaul

Applied Computer Science ·

PaperPDF

In one sentence. Compares decision trees, LMT, M5 model trees, gradient boosting and NARX for rainfall classification from three Kashmir stations; gradient boosting reaches 87.5% accuracy.

Abstract

Rainfall prediction is one of the most challenging task faced by researchers over the years. Many machine learning and AI based algorithms have been implemented on different datasets for better prediction purposes, but there is not a single solution which perfectly predicts the rainfall. Accurate prediction still remains a question to researchers. We offer a machine learning-based comparison evaluation of rainfall models for Kashmir province. Both local geographic features and the time horizon has influence on weather forecasting. Decision trees, Logistic Model Trees (LMT), and M5 model trees are examples of predictive models based on algorithms. GWLM-NARX, Gradient Boosting, and other techniques were investigated. Weather predictors measured from three major meteorological stations in the Kashmir area of the UT of J&K, India, were utilized in the models. We compared the proposed models based on their accuracy, kappa, interpretability, and other statistics, as well as the significance of the predictors utilized. On the original dataset, the DT model delivers an accuracy of 80.12 percent, followed by the LMT and Gradient boosting models, which produce accuracy of 87.23 percent and 87.51 percent, respectively. Furthermore, when continuous data was used in the M5-MT and GWLM-NARX models, the NARX model performed better, with mean squared error (MSE) and regression value (R) predictions of 3.12 percent and 0.9899 percent in training, 0.144 percent and 0.9936 percent in validation, and 0.311 percent and 0.9988 percent in testing.

Labels

Topic
Local & station forecasting
Type
Evaluation or intercomparison of existing models
Method
Classical ML (trees, GP, linear, kernels)
Time scale
6 h–3 days
Domain
Local / station
Data
Station / in-situ
Status
Research
Identifiers
DOI:10.35784/acs-2022-26 OpenAlex:W4320064879
Added
2026-10-22

Labels and summary are generated by Claude and reviewed weekly. Wrong? Edit this entry.