Table 3 Accuracy, rain bias, and snow bias for the three machine learning phase partitioning methods (PPMs): the artificial neural network (ANN), random forest (RF), and XGBoost (XG) applied to the two datasets

From: Machine learning shows a limit to rain-snow partitioning accuracy when using near-surface meteorology

   

Performance Metric for Machine Learning Models

Absolute Difference of Performance Metric to Benchmark Values

Dataset

PPM

Benchmark Comparison

Accuracy (%)

Snow Bias (%)

Rain Bias (%)

Accuracy (%)

Snow Bias (%)

Rain Bias (%)

Crowdsourced

ANN

Best

89.2

3.8

−8.6

0.5

−0.7

−1.6

RF

Best

88.3

3.5

−7.9

−0.4

−1

−2.3

XG

Best

88.8

4.7

−10.6

0.1

0.2

0.4

ANN

Average

89.2

3.8

−8.6

3.2

−1.7

−3.9

RF

Average

88.3

3.5

−7.9

2.3

−2

−4.5

XG

Average

88.8

4.7

−10.6

2.8

−0.8

−1.8

Synoptic

ANN

Best

92.8

1.5

−1.4

-0.3

−4.7

−4.1

RF

Best

93.7

3.6

−3.2

0.6

-2.6

−2.3

XG

Best

93.3

5.4

−4.8

0.1

-0.8

−0.7

ANN

Average

92.8

1.5

−1.4

0.8

−5.9

−5.2

RF

Average

93.7

3.6

−3.2

1.7

−3.8

−3.3

XG

Average

93.3

5.4

−4.8

1.3

−2

−1.7

  1. This table also presents the absolute differences between the machine learning method accuracy, rain bias, and snow bias values and the best-performing benchmark and the average benchmark values. Note: a positive value for the accuracy absolute difference indicates the machine learning method provided an improvement relative to the benchmark, while a negative value for the snow and rain bias absolute differences corresponds to an improvement.