Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Self-Supervised Learning with Probabilistic Density Labeling for Rainfall Probability Estimation

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Self-supervised rainfall post-processor beats six baselines on heavy-rain detection.

desk verdict A plausible SSL pre-training recipe for precipitation post-processing, but the headline 'surpasses all baselines' rests on one unreplicated month and a misread improvement figure. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05825 v1 pith:SBISCFPJ submitted 2024-12-08 cs.LG cs.CV

Junha Lee , Sojung An , Sujeong You , Namik Cho This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CV
keywords self-supervisedlearningrainfallprobabilityestimationnumericalweatherpredictionprecipitationpost-processingclassimbalanceprobabilisticdensitylabelingmaskedmodelingheavyrainforecasting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether a machine-learned post-processor can turn raw numerical weather prediction (NWP) output into reliable rainfall probability maps, especially for rare heavy-rain events. It proposes SSLPDL, which first pre-trains an encoder by reconstructing randomly masked chunks of sixteen atmospheric variables, then fine-tunes that encoder for pixel-level rainfall segmentation. To stop the model collapsing onto the overwhelmingly common 'no rain' class, it replaces hard one-hot labels with probability-density labels that spread probability across neighboring rainfall classes. On a one-month regional test set, SSLPDL reports the best scores among seven compared approaches, with heavy-rain CSI10 of 0.096 and mean overlap (mIoU) of 0.412 against a best baseline of about 0.389. If that advantage holds beyond the single test month, the method offers a practical way to extend the usable warning time of existing NWP forecasts.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-stage pipeline. In pre-training, patches of the 16-variable NWP input are randomly masked and fed through an encoder built from deformable convolution layers, convolution kernels with learned sampling offsets that let each output position pull features from adaptive neighboring locations, and the model is trained to reconstruct the masked patches by minimizing mean squared error over the masked set. This forces the encoder to represent dependencies among temperature, humidity, wind, pressure, and precipitation rather than memorize fixed pixels. In the downstream stage, the pre-trained encoder is attached to a segmentation decoder and trained with a weighted cross-entropy loss that mixes the one-hot label $y_i$ with a probabilistic density label $y_i^*$, defined for rainfall $\gamma$ between thresholds $\tau_{i-1}$ and $\tau_i$ as $y_i^* = (1-\alpha)\frac{\tau_i - \gamma}{\tau_i - \tau_{i-1}} + \frac{\alpha}{N}$, with $\alpha$ controlling smoothing strength and $N$ the number of classes. The mixture ratio $\beta$ in the loss is set to 0.25 and the fine-tuning masking ratio to 25%, which the ablation identifies as the best configuration.

What would settle it

Recompute CSI10 and mIoU for SSLPDL and every baseline on a multi-year, multi-season test set with several random seeds: if the heavy-rain CSI advantage over the best baseline, 0.096 versus 0.060 on August 2022, does not persist in other months or shrinks inside run-to-run variance, the central outperformance claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that masking-based self-supervised pre-training over atmospheric variables, combined with a smooth density-based labeling scheme, produces a precipitation post-processor that corrects NWP bias better than models trained directly on the downstream task. Specifically, SSLPDL reports the best scores among all six compared baselines on every rainfall interval, and its largest advantage is in heavy rain above 10 mm: CSI10 of 0.096 versus a best baseline around 0.060, with mIoU of 0.412 versus 0.389. Because the evaluation uses forecasts from 25 to 30 hours ahead, the authors present the method as extending the lead time at which NWP rainfall guidance remains reliable. The paper also claims the probabilistic density labeling is the component that prevents the rare heavy-rain class from being overwhelmed by the dominant no-rain class.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the single test month, August 2022, with one run and no confidence intervals, represents the method's true performance; if that month is unrepresentative, the claim that SSLPDL surpasses all baselines is unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Heavy-rain detection improves by a large margin: CSI10 rises from about 0.060 for the strongest baseline to 0.096, with mIoU reaching 0.412 versus 0.389.
  • The gains are not limited to the rare class: the method reports the best CSI0.1 and mIoU across all rainfall intervals, so the pre-training does not sacrifice common-rain performance to catch heavy rain.
  • The approach works as a post-processor on forecasts already made 25 to 30 hours ahead, so it can extend the usable lead time of existing NWP output without waiting for a finer-resolution run.
  • Probabilistic density labeling outperforms both one-hot labels and standard label smoothing across sampling strategies, with the largest improvements concentrated in the 10 mm class.
  • Monthly analysis shows consistent improvement over raw NWP output from March through November, with the largest gain, about 7.1% mIoU, in the high-variability July monsoon period.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the reported gain reproduces across multiple years, the same pre-training-plus-density-label recipe should transfer to other regional NWP systems and other rainfall thresholds, because neither the masking nor the labeling depends on the specific Korean grid.
  • The probabilistic density labeling is a general answer to class imbalance in gridded geophysical segmentation; hail, fog, and storm-surge probability mapping, all of which suffer from rare extreme pixels, are natural places to test it.
  • A decisive check would be calibration: reliability diagrams and Brier scores would show whether the smooth labels yield well-calibrated rainfall probabilities or merely better segmentation rankings.
  • Because the current evidence is a single August with no error bars, the specific magnitude of the heavy-rain gain, 0.096 versus 0.060, should be read as provisional until run-to-run and year-to-year variance is measured.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SSLPDL, a two-stage framework for post-processing numerical weather prediction (NWP) precipitation forecasts. In the first stage, a masked autoencoding-style pre-training task reconstructs masked atmospheric variables using an InternImage encoder with deformable convolutions, intended to capture dependencies among variables. In the second stage, the pre-trained encoder is transferred to a precipitation segmentation task with a UperNet decoder, and the loss combines one-hot labels with newly proposed probabilistic density labels. Experiments on the Korean RDAPS dataset compare SSLPDL with six baselines, reporting improvements in CSI and mIoU, including heavy-rain CSI10 of 0.096, and the paper claims extended forecast lead times. Code is made publicly available.

Significance. The topic is practically important: post-processing high-resolution regional NWP forecasts with self-supervised representation learning is a plausible route toward better rare-event precipitation detection, and the paper proposes a concrete, potentially reusable algorithmic combination of masked pre-training, deformable convolution, and density-based soft labels. The release of code and the use of a real operational NWP dataset are strengths. If the reported gains were confirmed on a broader evaluation, the method would be useful for operational forecasting. However, the current evidence base is too narrow to establish the headline claims: the main comparison rests on a single test month with no uncertainty quantification, the abstract's improvement figure is overstated relative to the best baseline, and the proposed density labels are not normalized as claimed.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1 and Table 3] The central claim that SSLPDL 'outperforms all the baselines on the RDAPS test set' is supported by results from a single test month, August 2022, with no repeated runs, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Heavy-rain CSI10 is a rare-event metric, and the difference between the reported 0.096 and the best baseline 0.060 can be sensitive to a small number of correctly detected cells in one month. Please provide multi-season and multi-year evaluation, or at minimum bootstrap confidence intervals and multiple seeded runs, before the superiority claim can be considered established.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4.3] The abstract's claim of 'improving mIoU by over 9.9%' is not supported relative to the strongest baseline. In Table 3, the best baseline mIoU is 0.389 (Swin-Unet and PostRainBench), while SSLPDL reaches 0.412; the relative improvement is approximately (0.412-0.389)/0.389 = 5.9%. The 9.9% figure only roughly matches the gain against the average of all six baselines (average mIoU about 0.375). Please state the comparison basis explicitly and avoid the implication that SSLPDL improves on the best baseline by 9.9%.
  3. [Section 3.4, Eq. (3), Algorithm 1] The statement that 'the probability sum for each class equals 1' is incorrect except at threshold values. For a rainfall amount gamma in [tau_{i-1}, tau_i), the label y*_i equals (1-alpha)*(1 - (gamma-tau_{i-1})/(tau_i-tau_{i-1})) + alpha/N, while all other entries are alpha/N, so the total is (1-alpha)*(1 - (gamma-tau_{i-1})/(tau_i-tau_{i-1})) + alpha, which is less than 1 unless the density factor is exactly 1. Since the cross-entropy in Eq. (2) uses these values as targets, either normalize y* or revise the claim that the labels form a probability distribution; as written, the labeling scheme is mis-specified.
  4. [Section 4.4, Table 4] The text says that 'the larger the masking ratio in the pre-training, the better the results,' but the table does not show a monotonic trend: for pre-training, the 75% ratio gives CSI0.1 = 0.389, while the 90% ratio gives CSI0.1 = 0.356. Please correct either the narrative or the table so that the ablation result is reported accurately.
  5. [Section 4.4, Figure 5] The text reports an overall 4.2% improvement over RDAPS and a 7.1% gain in July, but the data labels in Figure 5 appear to contradict this. If the first row of labels (48.0, 45.9, 48.1, 46.2, 48.3, 46.5, 47.9, 46.5, 41.9) is RDAPS and the second row (39.1, 41.2, 38.9, 47.1, 45.8, 47.3, 46.4, 48.5, 46.3) is SSLPDL, SSLPDL is lower in five of nine months and the overall average is lower, not 4.2% higher. If the order is reversed, the July gain is approximately 5.5%, not 7.1%. Please reconcile the data labels, the series order, and the reported percentages.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'surpasses other precipitation forecasting models' is broader than what is demonstrated; the comparison is with post-processing baselines on the RDAPS test set, and the claims should be scoped accordingly.
  2. [Section 3.1] The notation f_Theta, f_phi, and f_theta is confusing; the sentence 'involving reconstructing f_phi from the NWP forecasts to map the target object function f_theta' should be rewritten for clarity.
  3. [Table 2] The 'Labeling' column is unclear: probabilistic density labeling produces soft vectors, not discrete class assignments, so the meaning of 'data proportion after probabilistic density labeling' needs a definition, for example whether the percentages are sums of probability mass over the training set.
  4. [Table 5] The notation for the parenthetical deltas is ambiguous; please state explicitly that the plain number is the score without probabilistic density labeling and the parenthetical is the change, since rows such as PostRainBench CSI10 = .063 (▼.035) only cohere with Table 3 (where the labeled score is .028) under that reading.
  5. [References] References [37] and [38] are the same paper (PostRainBench); please deduplicate the entry and cite it consistently.
  6. [Figure 1] The caption reports percentage improvements per lead time (5.2%, 8.2%, 5.0%, 8.4%, 9.9%, 4.9%), but the baseline for these percentages is not specified and they are not directly tied to values in Table 3; please clarify the calculation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity: the benchmark comparison is self-contained; the only self-citation is minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper makes no formal derivation from first principles; its central claim is an empirical model comparison on an external benchmark (RDAPS test set, August 2022) against six named baselines. The SSL pre-training objective (Eq. 1) and the cross-entropy loss with probabilistic density labels (Eqs. 2-3, Algorithm 1) are training objectives, not predictions derived from the evaluation metric. CSI/mIoU are computed from held-out outputs and are not used to construct labels or to fit any reported parameter. Hyperparameters (alpha, beta, masking ratios, sampling ratios) are tuned on a validation set (September-November 2022), which is standard model fitting, not circularity. The only self-citation is Ref. [2] (co-author Sojung An), cited in the monthly-impact analysis to support a background sentence about monsoon forecasting difficulty; it is not load-bearing. One internal inconsistency should be noted separately: the paper states 'the probability sum for each class equals 1' (Section 3.4), but for interior classes the sum is (1-alpha)*density + alpha, which equals 1 only at the lower boundary; this is a mathematical correctness issue, not a circularity, and it does not make the empirical comparison circular. The single-month test set and lack of confidence intervals are robustness concerns, not evidence that the result reduces to its inputs. Since no equation or self-citation chain forces the reported outcome, the derivation is self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. The central claim depends on a set of hyperparameters (alpha, beta, masking ratios, sampling ratio) tuned on the validation set, and on domain assumptions about the usefulness of NWP variables and the transferability of masked-model representations. The alpha=0 result in the ablation undermines the narrative that the smoothing component of the density labeling helps.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (label smoothing strength) = 0 (no smoothing in best configuration)
    Tuned on validation set; Figure 4a shows alpha=0 performs best, so the smoothing component of the proposed labeling is not actually used in the final model.
  • beta (loss mixing ratio between one-hot and density labels) = 0.25
    Set from the validation sweep in Figure 4b; affects the central loss function in Equation 2.
  • Masking ratio (pre-training) = 75%
    Chosen from {50%, 75%, 90%} in Table 4; the text says larger is better but the table shows 75% gives the best CSI0.1.
  • Masking ratio (fine-tuning) = 25%
    Chosen from {0%, 25%, 50%} in Table 4; 25% gives the best heavy-rain CSI10.
  • Rainy/non-rainy day sampling ratio = 80% rainy days / 20% non-rainy days
    Introduced in Section 4.1 to rebalance the training set; no sensitivity analysis is reported for the main model.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption NWP forecast variables (winds, temperature, humidity, geopotential, SLP, rain) are informative for predicting QPE-derived rainfall probability.
    Task definition in Section 3.1 and data selection in Section 4.1 assume these features carry the signal for post-processing.
  • domain assumption Masked reconstruction of atmospheric variables learns variable dependencies that transfer to precipitation segmentation.
    Core of the pre-training scheme in Section 3.2; only tested by one internal ablation (Table 5), with no analysis of what representations are learned.
  • domain assumption Deformable convolution aggregates neighboring pixels in a way that captures spatiotemporal bias better than fixed convolution.
    Motivates the InternImage encoder in Section 3.2; no controlled comparison with fixed convolutions on the same data is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper Probabilistic density labels with the chosen beta improve heavy-rain detection without degrading overall skill.
    Section 3.4 and ablations in Figure 4; the best alpha=0 configuration means the smoothing component is not active, leaving only the density term.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-Supervised Learning with Probabilistic Density Labeling for Rainfall Probability Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SBISCFPJ

@misc{pith2026241205825,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-Supervised Learning with Probabilistic Density Labeling for Rainfall Probability Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SBISCFPJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05825}
}
read the original abstract

Numerical weather prediction (NWP) models are fundamental in meteorology for simulating and forecasting the behavior of various atmospheric variables. The accuracy of precipitation forecasts and the acquisition of sufficient lead time are crucial for preventing hazardous weather events. However, the performance of NWP models is limited by the nonlinear and unpredictable patterns of extreme weather phenomena driven by temporal dynamics. In this regard, we propose a \textbf{S}elf-\textbf{S}upervised \textbf{L}earning with \textbf{P}robabilistic \textbf{D}ensity \textbf{L}abeling (SSLPDL) for estimating rainfall probability by post-processing NWP forecasts. Our post-processing method uses self-supervised learning (SSL) with masked modeling for reconstructing atmospheric physics variables, enabling the model to learn the dependency between variables. The pre-trained encoder is then utilized in transfer learning to a precipitation segmentation task. Furthermore, we introduce a straightforward labeling approach based on probability density to address the class imbalance in extreme weather phenomena like heavy rain events. Experimental results show that SSLPDL surpasses other precipitation forecasting models in regional precipitation post-processing and demonstrates competitive performance in extending forecast lead times. Our code is available at https://github.com/joonha425/SSLPDL

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05825 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our SSLPDL improves NWP forecast accuracy and se [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall structure of SSLPDL. Two-stage process representing spatiotemporal bias in forecasts: i) Pre-training and ii) Down [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization result between benchmarks on August 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ablation study on hyperparamter for optimizing proba [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Monthly analysis of the impact of our SSLPDL on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Effective management of class imbalance problem in climate data analysis using a hybrid of deep learning and data level sampling

    RJ Aarthi and B Vinayagasundaram. Effective management of class imbalance problem in climate data analysis using a hybrid of deep learning and data level sampling. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 43(4):4187–4199, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Self-clustered gan for precipitation nowcasting

    Sojung An, Tae-Jin Oh, Sang-Wook Kim, and Jason J Jung. Self-clustered gan for precipitation nowcasting. Scientific Reports, 14, 2024. 8

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    The rise of data-driven weather fore- casting: A first statistical assessment of machine learning– based weather forecasts in an operational-like context

    Zied Ben Bouall `egue, Mariana CA Clare, Linus Magnusson, Estibaliz Gascon, Michael Maier-Gerber, Martin Janou ˇsek, Mark Rodwell, Florian Pinault, Jesper S Dramsch, Si- mon TK Lang, et al. The rise of data-driven weather fore- casting: A first statistical assessment of machine learning– based weather forecasts in an operational-like context. Bul- letin o...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Big data in precision agriculture: Weather forecasting for future farming

    MR Bendre, RC Thool, and VR Thool. Big data in precision agriculture: Weather forecasting for future farming. In 2015 1st international conference on next generation computing technologies (NGCT), pages 744–750. IEEE, 2015. 1

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Addressing class imbalance in deep learning for small lesion detection on medical images

    Alessandro Bria, Claudio Marrocco, and Francesco Tor- torella. Addressing class imbalance in deep learning for small lesion detection on medical images. Computers in bi- ology and medicine, 120:103735, 2020. 2

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Swin-unet: Unet-like pure transformer for medical image segmentation

    Hu Cao, Yueyue Wang, Joy Chen, Dongsheng Jiang, Xi- aopeng Zhang, Qi Tian, and Manning Wang. Swin-unet: Unet-like pure transformer for medical image segmentation. In European conference on computer vision, pages 205–218. Springer, 2022. 5, 7

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Pcct: Progressive class-center triplet loss for imbalanced medical image classification.IEEE Jour- nal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 27(4):2026–2036,

    Kanghao Chen, Weixian Lei, Shen Zhao, Wei-Shi Zheng, and Ruixuan Wang. Pcct: Progressive class-center triplet loss for imbalanced medical image classification.IEEE Jour- nal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 27(4):2026–2036,

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    Contribution of historical precipitation change to us flood damages

    Frances V Davenport, Marshall Burke, and Noah S Diffen- baugh. Contribution of historical precipitation change to us flood damages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences, 118(4):e2017524118, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Machine learning for numerical weather and climate mod- elling: a review

    Catherine O de Burgh-Day and Tennessee Leeuwenburg. Machine learning for numerical weather and climate mod- elling: a review. Geoscientific Model Development , 16(22):6433–6477, 2023. 1

    2023

  2. [10]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Syl- vain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint a...

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Multiscale vision transformers

    Haoqi Fan, Bo Xiong, Karttikeya Mangalam, Yanghao Li, Zhicheng Yan, Jitendra Malik, and Christoph Feichten- hofer. Multiscale vision transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 6824–6835, 2021. 3

    2021

  4. [12]

    Masked autoencoders as spatiotemporal learners

    Christoph Feichtenhofer, Yanghao Li, Kaiming He, et al. Masked autoencoders as spatiotemporal learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:35946–35958,

  5. [13]

    Han- dling imbalanced medical image data: A deep-learning- based one-class classification approach

    Long Gao, Lei Zhang, Chang Liu, and Shandong Wu. Han- dling imbalanced medical image data: A deep-learning- based one-class classification approach. Artificial intelli- gence in medicine, 108:101935, 2020. 2

    2020

  6. [14]

    Spatio-temporal enhanced contrastive and contextual learning for weather forecasting

    Yongshun Gong, Tiantian He, Meng Chen, Bin Wang, Liqiang Nie, and Yilong Yin. Spatio-temporal enhanced contrastive and contextual learning for weather forecasting. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering ,

  7. [15]

    Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners

    Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Doll´ar, and Ross Girshick. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 16000– 16009, 2022. 2

    2022

  8. [16]

    Deep learning for improving numerical weather prediction of heavy rain- fall

    Philipp Hess and Niklas Boers. Deep learning for improving numerical weather prediction of heavy rain- fall. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems , 14(3):e2021MS002765, 2022. 2

    2022

  9. [17]

    Survey on deep learning with class imbalance

    Justin M Johnson and Taghi M Khoshgoftaar. Survey on deep learning with class imbalance. Journal of Big Data , 6(1):1–54, 2019. 2

    2019

  10. [18]

    Decou- pling representation and classifier for long-tailed recogni- tion

    Bingyi Kang, Saining Xie, Marcus Rohrbach, Zhicheng Yan, Albert Gordo, Jiashi Feng, and Yannis Kalantidis. Decou- pling representation and classifier for long-tailed recogni- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.09217, 2019. 3

    1910 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Forecasting global weather with graph neural networks

    Ryan Keisler. Forecasting global weather with graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07575, 2022. 5

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Benchmark dataset for precipitation forecasting by post-processing the numerical weather prediction

    Taehyeon Kim, Namgyu Ho, Donggyu Kim, and Se-Young Yun. Benchmark dataset for precipitation forecasting by post-processing the numerical weather prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.15241, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Validation of integrated multisatellite retrievals for gpm (imerg) by us- ing gauge-based analysis products of daily precipitation over east asia

    Juwon Lee, Eun-Hee Lee, and Kyung-Hee Seol. Validation of integrated multisatellite retrievals for gpm (imerg) by us- ing gauge-based analysis products of daily precipitation over east asia. Theoretical and Applied Climatology , 137:2497– 2512, 2019. 8

    2019

  14. [23]

    Real-world data: a brief review of the methods, applications, challenges and opportunities

    Fang Liu and Demosthenes Panagiotakos. Real-world data: a brief review of the methods, applications, challenges and opportunities. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 22(1):287, 2022. 2

    2022

  15. [24]

    Deep-learning post-processing of short-term station precipitation based on nwp forecasts.Atmospheric Research, 295:107032, 2023

    Qi Liu, Xiao Lou, Zhongwei Yan, Yajie Qi, Yuchao Jin, Shuang Yu, Xiaoliang Yang, Deming Zhao, and Jiangjiang Xia. Deep-learning post-processing of short-term station precipitation based on nwp forecasts.Atmospheric Research, 295:107032, 2023. 2

    2023

  16. [25]

    Exploring the limits of weakly supervised pretraining

    Dhruv Mahajan, Ross Girshick, Vignesh Ramanathan, Kaiming He, Manohar Paluri, Yixuan Li, Ashwin Bharambe, and Laurens Van Der Maaten. Exploring the limits of weakly supervised pretraining. In Proceedings of the European con- ference on computer vision (ECCV) , pages 181–196, 2018. 3

    2018

  17. [26]

    W-mae: Pre-trained weather model with masked autoen- 9 coder for multi-variable weather forecasting

    Xin Man, Chenghong Zhang, Changyu Li, and Jie Shao. W-mae: Pre-trained weather model with masked autoen- 9 coder for multi-variable weather forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08754, 2023. 2, 5

    2023 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Self-supervised rep- resentation learning from 12-lead ecg data

    Temesgen Mehari and Nils Strodthoff. Self-supervised rep- resentation learning from 12-lead ecg data. Computers in biology and medicine, 141:105114, 2022. 8

    2022

  19. [28]

    When does label smoothing help? Advances in neural in- formation processing systems, 32, 2019

    Rafael M ¨uller, Simon Kornblith, and Geoffrey E Hinton. When does label smoothing help? Advances in neural in- formation processing systems, 32, 2019. 3, 8

    2019

  20. [29]

    Fourcastnet: A global data-driven high- resolution weather model using adaptive fourier neural op- erators

    Jaideep Pathak, Shashank Subramanian, Peter Harrington, Sanjeev Raja, Ashesh Chattopadhyay, Morteza Mardani, Thorsten Kurth, David Hall, Zongyi Li, Kamyar Azizzade- nesheli, et al. Fourcastnet: A global data-driven high- resolution weather model using adaptive fourier neural o...

    2022 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Deep learning models for generation of precipitation maps based on numerical weather prediction

    Adrian Rojas-Campos, Michael Langguth, Martin Witten- brink, and Gordon Pipa. Deep learning models for generation of precipitation maps based on numerical weather prediction. Geoscientific Model Development , 16(5):1467–1480, 2023. 1

    2023

  22. [31]

    Post- processing of nwp precipitation forecasts using deep learn- ing

    Adrian Rojas-Campos, Martin Wittenbrink, Pascal Nieters, Erik J Schaffernicht, Jan D Keller, and Gordon Pipa. Post- processing of nwp precipitation forecasts using deep learn- ing. Weather and Forecasting, 38(3):487–497, 2023. 2

    2023

  23. [32]

    Spatio- temporal downscaling of climate data using convolutional and error-predicting neural networks

    Agon Serifi, Tobias G ¨unther, and Nikolina Ban. Spatio- temporal downscaling of climate data using convolutional and error-predicting neural networks. Frontiers in Climate, 3:656479, 2021. 1

    2021

  24. [33]

    Convolutional lstm network: A machine learning approach for precipitation nowcasting

    Xingjian Shi, Zhourong Chen, Hao Wang, Dit-Yan Yeung, Wai-Kin Wong, and Wang-chun Woo. Convolutional lstm network: A machine learning approach for precipitation nowcasting. Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, 28, 2015. 5, 6, 7

    2015

  25. [34]

    Simplifying neural network training under class imbalance

    Ravid Shwartz-Ziv, Micah Goldblum, Yucen Li, C Bayan Bruss, and Andrew G Wilson. Simplifying neural network training under class imbalance. Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 3

    2024

  26. [35]

    Environmental hazards: assessing risk and re- ducing disaster

    Keith Smith. Environmental hazards: assessing risk and re- ducing disaster. Routledge, 2013. 1

    2013

  27. [36]

    Metnet: A neural weather model for precipitation forecasting

    Casper Kaae Sønderby, Lasse Espeholt, Jonathan Heek, Mostafa Dehghani, Avital Oliver, Tim Salimans, Shreya Agrawal, Jason Hickey, and Nal Kalchbrenner. Metnet: A neural weather model for precipitation forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.12140, 2020. 5, 6, 7

    2003 arXiv

  28. [38]

    Postrainbench: A comprehensive benchmark and a new model for precipitation forecasting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02676, 2023

    Yujin Tang, Jiaming Zhou, Xiang Pan, Zeying Gong, and Junwei Liang. Postrainbench: A comprehensive benchmark and a new model for precipitation forecasting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02676, 2023. 5, 6, 7

    2023 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Videomae: Masked autoencoders are data-efficient learners for self-supervised video pre-training

    Zhan Tong, Yibing Song, Jue Wang, and Limin Wang. Videomae: Masked autoencoders are data-efficient learners for self-supervised video pre-training. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:10078–10093, 2022. 2, 4

    2022

  30. [40]

    Exploiting domain knowledge to address class imbalance in meteoro- logical data mining

    Evangelos Tsagalidis and Georgios Evangelidis. Exploiting domain knowledge to address class imbalance in meteoro- logical data mining. Applied Sciences, 12(23):12402, 2022. 2

    2022

  31. [41]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszko- reit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 4

    2017

  32. [42]

    Internimage: Exploring large-scale vi- sion foundation models with deformable convolutions

    Wenhai Wang, Jifeng Dai, Zhe Chen, Zhenhang Huang, Zhiqi Li, Xizhou Zhu, Xiaowei Hu, Tong Lu, Lewei Lu, Hongsheng Li, et al. Internimage: Exploring large-scale vi- sion foundation models with deformable convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- si...

    2023

  33. [43]

    Long-tailed recognition by rout- ing diverse distribution-aware experts

    Xudong Wang, Long Lian, Zhongqi Miao, Ziwei Liu, and Stella X Yu. Long-tailed recognition by rout- ing diverse distribution-aware experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01809, 2020. 2

    2010 arXiv

  34. [44]

    Guide to meteorolog- ical instruments and methods of observation

    World Meteorological Organization. Guide to meteorolog- ical instruments and methods of observation. Technical Report WMO-No. 8, World Meteorological Organization,

  35. [45]

    Unified perceptual parsing for scene understand- ing

    Tete Xiao, Yingcheng Liu, Bolei Zhou, Yuning Jiang, and Jian Sun. Unified perceptual parsing for scene understand- ing. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 418–434, 2018. 4

    2018

  36. [46]

    mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimiza- tion

    Hongyi Zhang, Moustapha Cisse, Yann N Dauphin, and David Lopez-Paz. mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimiza- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.09412, 2017. 8

    2017 arXiv

  37. [47]

    Test-agnostic long-tailed recognition by test-time aggregat- ing diverse experts with self-supervision

    Yifan Zhang, Bryan Hooi, Lanqing Hong, and Jiashi Feng. Test-agnostic long-tailed recognition by test-time aggregat- ing diverse experts with self-supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.09249, 2(5):6, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  38. [48]

    Leave no stone unturned: Mine extra knowledge for imbal- anced facial expression recognition

    Yuhang Zhang, Yaqi Li, Xuannan Liu, Weihong Deng, et al. Leave no stone unturned: Mine extra knowledge for imbal- anced facial expression recognition. Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 2

    2024

  39. [49]

    Ur- ban computing: concepts, methodologies, and applications

    Yu Zheng, Licia Capra, Ouri Wolfson, and Hai Yang. Ur- ban computing: concepts, methodologies, and applications. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 5(3):1–55, 2014. 1 10

    2014

  40. [2008]

    Accessed: 2024-11-27. 6

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.