A Comparative Study of Four Merging Approaches for Regional Precipitation Estimation
To identify suitable merging methods to improve regional precipitation estimates using multiple sources of precipitation data, this study applied four different approaches (multiple linear regression (MLR), feedforward neural network (FNN), random forest (RF) and long short-term memory network (LSTM...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | IEEE access 2021, Vol.9, p.33625-33637 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 33637 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 33625 |
container_title | IEEE access |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Fan, Zedong Li, Weiyue Jiang, Qin Sun, Weiwei Wen, Jiahong Gao, Jun |
description | To identify suitable merging methods to improve regional precipitation estimates using multiple sources of precipitation data, this study applied four different approaches (multiple linear regression (MLR), feedforward neural network (FNN), random forest (RF) and long short-term memory network (LSTM)) to merge four satellite precipitation products and one reanalysis data in the Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Shanghai of China. The pros and cons of the merging approaches are analyzed comprehensively, using correlation coefficient (CC), root mean square error (RMSE), relative bias (RB), probability of detection (POD), false alarm ratio (FAR), and critical success index (CSI) as evaluation indexes. Our results show that: (1) All merging approaches can improve the accuracy of precipitation estimations, but only RF and LSTM can improve the daily precipitation event detection capacity. These approaches can significantly reduce errors in moderate precipitation scenarios, but do not effectively improve accuracy in light and heavy precipitation scenarios. (2) MLR was the least expensive computing cost method in our study and performed better than the other three methods when gauge density was low. However, MLR had the worst daily precipitation event detection capacity (CSI = 0.67). (3) FNN performed moderately in most experiments (CC = 0.87, RMSE = 4.65 mm/day, RB = 1.19 %, POD = 0.94, FAR = 0.29, CSI = 0.70). (4) The merged data generated by RF was the most accurate and had the best daily precipitation event detection capacity (CC = 0.87, RMSE = 4.61 mm/day, RB = − 0.33 %, POD = 0.97, FAR = 0.20, CSI = 0.78). RF performed best in moderate precipitation scenarios. However, it performed worse than other methods when gauge density was low. (5) LSTM was the most robust methods and performed best in light precipitation scenarios. The FAR of the LSTM-generated data was the smallest (0.15) among four fusion methods. However, LSTM had the most expensive computing cost and the worst accuracy of the merged data (CC = 0.86, RMSE = 4.68 mm/day, RB = − 9.36 %). |
doi_str_mv | 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3057057 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1109_ACCESS_2021_3057057</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ieee_id>9358010</ieee_id><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_644abe9558f84ec095a548879ace371b</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2505711820</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-975bca8edf5c1a8dfb2b0e9fdede1f2f32bcea65c3c1e7ebeafbd5a9866a64d83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNUVFLwzAQLqKgzP0CXwI-byZN0yaPo0wdTBQ3n8M1vcyMudSkE_z3ZlaGx8Edx33fx92XZTeMThmj6m5W1_PVaprTnE05FVXKs-wqZ6WacMHL83_9ZTaOcUtTyDQS1VW2npHaf3QQoHdfSFb9of0m3pJ7fwjkCcPG7Tdk1nXBg3nHSKwP5BU3zu9hR14CGte5PmH9nsxj7z5-2-vswsIu4vivjrK3-_m6fpwsnx8W9Ww5MYWQ_URVojEgsbXCMJCtbfKGorIttshsbnneGIRSGG4YVtgg2KYVoGRZQlm0ko-yxcDbetjqLiT58K09OP078GGjIfTO7FCXRQENKiGklQUaqgSIQspKgUFesSZx3Q5c6dTPA8Zeb9ML0pVR5yK9lDGZ07TFhy0TfIwB7UmVUX10Qw9u6KMb-s-NhLoZUA4RTwjFhaSM8h_M94eO</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2505711820</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Comparative Study of Four Merging Approaches for Regional Precipitation Estimation</title><source>IEEE Open Access Journals</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Fan, Zedong ; Li, Weiyue ; Jiang, Qin ; Sun, Weiwei ; Wen, Jiahong ; Gao, Jun</creator><creatorcontrib>Fan, Zedong ; Li, Weiyue ; Jiang, Qin ; Sun, Weiwei ; Wen, Jiahong ; Gao, Jun</creatorcontrib><description>To identify suitable merging methods to improve regional precipitation estimates using multiple sources of precipitation data, this study applied four different approaches (multiple linear regression (MLR), feedforward neural network (FNN), random forest (RF) and long short-term memory network (LSTM)) to merge four satellite precipitation products and one reanalysis data in the Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Shanghai of China. The pros and cons of the merging approaches are analyzed comprehensively, using correlation coefficient (CC), root mean square error (RMSE), relative bias (RB), probability of detection (POD), false alarm ratio (FAR), and critical success index (CSI) as evaluation indexes. Our results show that: (1) All merging approaches can improve the accuracy of precipitation estimations, but only RF and LSTM can improve the daily precipitation event detection capacity. These approaches can significantly reduce errors in moderate precipitation scenarios, but do not effectively improve accuracy in light and heavy precipitation scenarios. (2) MLR was the least expensive computing cost method in our study and performed better than the other three methods when gauge density was low. However, MLR had the worst daily precipitation event detection capacity (CSI = 0.67). (3) FNN performed moderately in most experiments (CC = 0.87, RMSE = 4.65 mm/day, RB = 1.19 %, POD = 0.94, FAR = 0.29, CSI = 0.70). (4) The merged data generated by RF was the most accurate and had the best daily precipitation event detection capacity (CC = 0.87, RMSE = 4.61 mm/day, RB = − 0.33 %, POD = 0.97, FAR = 0.20, CSI = 0.78). RF performed best in moderate precipitation scenarios. However, it performed worse than other methods when gauge density was low. (5) LSTM was the most robust methods and performed best in light precipitation scenarios. The FAR of the LSTM-generated data was the smallest (0.15) among four fusion methods. However, LSTM had the most expensive computing cost and the worst accuracy of the merged data (CC = 0.86, RMSE = 4.68 mm/day, RB = − 9.36 %).</description><identifier>ISSN: 2169-3536</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2169-3536</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3057057</identifier><identifier>CODEN: IAECCG</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Piscataway: IEEE</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Accuracy improvement ; Artificial neural networks ; Comparative studies ; Computing costs ; Correlation analysis ; Correlation coefficients ; Data integration ; data merging ; Density ; Estimation ; False alarms ; gridded precipitation data ; Merging ; Meteorology ; precipitation estimation ; Radio frequency ; Rain ; Regression analysis ; robustness ; Root-mean-square errors ; Satellites ; Statistical analysis</subject><ispartof>IEEE access, 2021, Vol.9, p.33625-33637</ispartof><rights>Copyright The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-975bca8edf5c1a8dfb2b0e9fdede1f2f32bcea65c3c1e7ebeafbd5a9866a64d83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-975bca8edf5c1a8dfb2b0e9fdede1f2f32bcea65c3c1e7ebeafbd5a9866a64d83</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3928-3998 ; 0000-0003-3399-7858</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9358010$$EHTML$$P50$$Gieee$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,861,2096,4010,27614,27904,27905,27906,54914</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fan, Zedong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Weiyue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Qin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Weiwei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wen, Jiahong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gao, Jun</creatorcontrib><title>A Comparative Study of Four Merging Approaches for Regional Precipitation Estimation</title><title>IEEE access</title><addtitle>Access</addtitle><description>To identify suitable merging methods to improve regional precipitation estimates using multiple sources of precipitation data, this study applied four different approaches (multiple linear regression (MLR), feedforward neural network (FNN), random forest (RF) and long short-term memory network (LSTM)) to merge four satellite precipitation products and one reanalysis data in the Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Shanghai of China. The pros and cons of the merging approaches are analyzed comprehensively, using correlation coefficient (CC), root mean square error (RMSE), relative bias (RB), probability of detection (POD), false alarm ratio (FAR), and critical success index (CSI) as evaluation indexes. Our results show that: (1) All merging approaches can improve the accuracy of precipitation estimations, but only RF and LSTM can improve the daily precipitation event detection capacity. These approaches can significantly reduce errors in moderate precipitation scenarios, but do not effectively improve accuracy in light and heavy precipitation scenarios. (2) MLR was the least expensive computing cost method in our study and performed better than the other three methods when gauge density was low. However, MLR had the worst daily precipitation event detection capacity (CSI = 0.67). (3) FNN performed moderately in most experiments (CC = 0.87, RMSE = 4.65 mm/day, RB = 1.19 %, POD = 0.94, FAR = 0.29, CSI = 0.70). (4) The merged data generated by RF was the most accurate and had the best daily precipitation event detection capacity (CC = 0.87, RMSE = 4.61 mm/day, RB = − 0.33 %, POD = 0.97, FAR = 0.20, CSI = 0.78). RF performed best in moderate precipitation scenarios. However, it performed worse than other methods when gauge density was low. (5) LSTM was the most robust methods and performed best in light precipitation scenarios. The FAR of the LSTM-generated data was the smallest (0.15) among four fusion methods. However, LSTM had the most expensive computing cost and the worst accuracy of the merged data (CC = 0.86, RMSE = 4.68 mm/day, RB = − 9.36 %).</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Accuracy improvement</subject><subject>Artificial neural networks</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Computing costs</subject><subject>Correlation analysis</subject><subject>Correlation coefficients</subject><subject>Data integration</subject><subject>data merging</subject><subject>Density</subject><subject>Estimation</subject><subject>False alarms</subject><subject>gridded precipitation data</subject><subject>Merging</subject><subject>Meteorology</subject><subject>precipitation estimation</subject><subject>Radio frequency</subject><subject>Rain</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>robustness</subject><subject>Root-mean-square errors</subject><subject>Satellites</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><issn>2169-3536</issn><issn>2169-3536</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ESBDL</sourceid><sourceid>RIE</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpNUVFLwzAQLqKgzP0CXwI-byZN0yaPo0wdTBQ3n8M1vcyMudSkE_z3ZlaGx8Edx33fx92XZTeMThmj6m5W1_PVaprTnE05FVXKs-wqZ6WacMHL83_9ZTaOcUtTyDQS1VW2npHaf3QQoHdfSFb9of0m3pJ7fwjkCcPG7Tdk1nXBg3nHSKwP5BU3zu9hR14CGte5PmH9nsxj7z5-2-vswsIu4vivjrK3-_m6fpwsnx8W9Ww5MYWQ_URVojEgsbXCMJCtbfKGorIttshsbnneGIRSGG4YVtgg2KYVoGRZQlm0ko-yxcDbetjqLiT58K09OP078GGjIfTO7FCXRQENKiGklQUaqgSIQspKgUFesSZx3Q5c6dTPA8Zeb9ML0pVR5yK9lDGZ07TFhy0TfIwB7UmVUX10Qw9u6KMb-s-NhLoZUA4RTwjFhaSM8h_M94eO</recordid><startdate>2021</startdate><enddate>2021</enddate><creator>Fan, Zedong</creator><creator>Li, Weiyue</creator><creator>Jiang, Qin</creator><creator>Sun, Weiwei</creator><creator>Wen, Jiahong</creator><creator>Gao, Jun</creator><general>IEEE</general><general>The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE)</general><scope>97E</scope><scope>ESBDL</scope><scope>RIA</scope><scope>RIE</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3928-3998</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3399-7858</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>2021</creationdate><title>A Comparative Study of Four Merging Approaches for Regional Precipitation Estimation</title><author>Fan, Zedong ; Li, Weiyue ; Jiang, Qin ; Sun, Weiwei ; Wen, Jiahong ; Gao, Jun</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-975bca8edf5c1a8dfb2b0e9fdede1f2f32bcea65c3c1e7ebeafbd5a9866a64d83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Accuracy improvement</topic><topic>Artificial neural networks</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Computing costs</topic><topic>Correlation analysis</topic><topic>Correlation coefficients</topic><topic>Data integration</topic><topic>data merging</topic><topic>Density</topic><topic>Estimation</topic><topic>False alarms</topic><topic>gridded precipitation data</topic><topic>Merging</topic><topic>Meteorology</topic><topic>precipitation estimation</topic><topic>Radio frequency</topic><topic>Rain</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>robustness</topic><topic>Root-mean-square errors</topic><topic>Satellites</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fan, Zedong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Weiyue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Qin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Weiwei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wen, Jiahong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gao, Jun</creatorcontrib><collection>IEEE All-Society Periodicals Package (ASPP) 2005-present</collection><collection>IEEE Open Access Journals</collection><collection>IEEE All-Society Periodicals Package (ASPP) 1998-Present</collection><collection>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL)</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>IEEE access</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fan, Zedong</au><au>Li, Weiyue</au><au>Jiang, Qin</au><au>Sun, Weiwei</au><au>Wen, Jiahong</au><au>Gao, Jun</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Comparative Study of Four Merging Approaches for Regional Precipitation Estimation</atitle><jtitle>IEEE access</jtitle><stitle>Access</stitle><date>2021</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>9</volume><spage>33625</spage><epage>33637</epage><pages>33625-33637</pages><issn>2169-3536</issn><eissn>2169-3536</eissn><coden>IAECCG</coden><abstract>To identify suitable merging methods to improve regional precipitation estimates using multiple sources of precipitation data, this study applied four different approaches (multiple linear regression (MLR), feedforward neural network (FNN), random forest (RF) and long short-term memory network (LSTM)) to merge four satellite precipitation products and one reanalysis data in the Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Shanghai of China. The pros and cons of the merging approaches are analyzed comprehensively, using correlation coefficient (CC), root mean square error (RMSE), relative bias (RB), probability of detection (POD), false alarm ratio (FAR), and critical success index (CSI) as evaluation indexes. Our results show that: (1) All merging approaches can improve the accuracy of precipitation estimations, but only RF and LSTM can improve the daily precipitation event detection capacity. These approaches can significantly reduce errors in moderate precipitation scenarios, but do not effectively improve accuracy in light and heavy precipitation scenarios. (2) MLR was the least expensive computing cost method in our study and performed better than the other three methods when gauge density was low. However, MLR had the worst daily precipitation event detection capacity (CSI = 0.67). (3) FNN performed moderately in most experiments (CC = 0.87, RMSE = 4.65 mm/day, RB = 1.19 %, POD = 0.94, FAR = 0.29, CSI = 0.70). (4) The merged data generated by RF was the most accurate and had the best daily precipitation event detection capacity (CC = 0.87, RMSE = 4.61 mm/day, RB = − 0.33 %, POD = 0.97, FAR = 0.20, CSI = 0.78). RF performed best in moderate precipitation scenarios. However, it performed worse than other methods when gauge density was low. (5) LSTM was the most robust methods and performed best in light precipitation scenarios. The FAR of the LSTM-generated data was the smallest (0.15) among four fusion methods. However, LSTM had the most expensive computing cost and the worst accuracy of the merged data (CC = 0.86, RMSE = 4.68 mm/day, RB = − 9.36 %).</abstract><cop>Piscataway</cop><pub>IEEE</pub><doi>10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3057057</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3928-3998</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3399-7858</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2169-3536 |
ispartof | IEEE access, 2021, Vol.9, p.33625-33637 |
issn | 2169-3536 2169-3536 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1109_ACCESS_2021_3057057 |
source | IEEE Open Access Journals; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
subjects | Accuracy Accuracy improvement Artificial neural networks Comparative studies Computing costs Correlation analysis Correlation coefficients Data integration data merging Density Estimation False alarms gridded precipitation data Merging Meteorology precipitation estimation Radio frequency Rain Regression analysis robustness Root-mean-square errors Satellites Statistical analysis |
title | A Comparative Study of Four Merging Approaches for Regional Precipitation Estimation |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T21%3A50%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Comparative%20Study%20of%20Four%20Merging%20Approaches%20for%20Regional%20Precipitation%20Estimation&rft.jtitle=IEEE%20access&rft.au=Fan,%20Zedong&rft.date=2021&rft.volume=9&rft.spage=33625&rft.epage=33637&rft.pages=33625-33637&rft.issn=2169-3536&rft.eissn=2169-3536&rft.coden=IAECCG&rft_id=info:doi/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3057057&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2505711820%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2505711820&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ieee_id=9358010&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_644abe9558f84ec095a548879ace371b&rfr_iscdi=true |