ArticleNature communications2025
Machine learning shows a limit to rain-snow partitioning accuracy when using near-surface meteorology.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Resolving short-term meteorological variability amplifies projected glacier loss and sea-level rise.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Snow or rain? hybrid AI deciphers surface precipitation phase from satellite observations.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based forecasting of daily acute ischemic stroke admissions using weather data.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Partitioning precipitation into rain and snow with near-surface meteorology is a well-known challenge. However, whether a limit exists to its potential performance remains unknown. Here, we evaluate this possibility by applying a set of benchmark precipitation phase partitioning methods plus three machine learning (ML) models (an artificial neural network, random forest, and XGBoost) to two independent datasets: 38.5 thousand crowdsourced observations and 17.8 million synoptic meteorology reports. The ML methods provide negligible improvements over the best benchmarks, increasing accuracy only by up to 0.6% and reducing rain and snow biases by up to -4.7%. ML methods fail to identify mixed precipitation and sub-freezing rainfall events, while expressing their worst accuracy values from 1.0 °C-2.5 °C. A potential cause of these shortcomings is the air temperature overlap in rain and snow distributions (peaking between 1.0 °C-1.6 °C), which expresses a significant negative relationship (p < 0.0005) with partitioning accuracy. Thus, the meteorological characteristics of rain and snow are similar at air temperatures slightly above freezing with increasing overlap associated with decreasing performance. We suggest researchers switch their focus from marginally improving inherently limited precipitation phase partitioning methods using near-surface meteorology to creating new methods that assimilate novel data sources-e.g., crowdsourced precipitation phase observations.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.