Systematic review analyzes hybrid models' effectiveness in predicting monthly precipitation, highlighting performance gaps.
Hybrid and ensemble machine learning models are increasingly used to predict monthly precipitation. This review synthesizes 85 studies (published between 2020 and 2025) using a unified R 2 -based framework. For each study, the hybrid model’s R 2 is contrasted with the best non-hybrid baseline, and results are summarized by hybrid class. Median R 2 is highest for parameter optimization and data preprocessing hybrids, followed by deep hybrids; component combination and post-processing configurations show more variable performance. A Kruskal–Wallis test on R 2 across classes indicates no statistically significant differences at α = 0.05 ( p = 0.63 ). The review clarifies complementarity with physics-based NWP (downscaling and post-processing), highlights recurrent pitfalls (leakage, representativeness, non-stationarity), and provides practical guidance for R 2 sound evaluation and reporting. While most reviewed studies operate at the station or grid-cell level, the scarcity of architectures that explicitly model spatial dependencies for monthly horizons is identified as a key gap.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pérez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: