Figures & data
Fig. 1 Location of raingauges in the state of Kentucky, USA (Region I).
Fig. 2 Location of raingauges and the gauge with missing data in the state of Florida, USA (Region II).
Table 1 Performance measures based on different real-valued distance metrics used in optimal proximity-based imputation for Region I.
Table 2 Performance measures based on different binary proximity measures used in optimal proximity-based imputation for Region I.
Table 3 Performance measures based on different real-valued distance metrics used in optimal proximity-based imputation for Region II.
Table 4 Performance measures based on different binary distance metrics used in optimal proximity-based imputation for Region II.
Table 5 Performance measures based on different threshold values of precipitation for binary distance metric-based imputation for Region I.
Table 6 Performance measures based on different classes used in correlation and optimization-based K-NN classification imputation for Region I.
Table 7 Performance measures based on different classes used in correlation and optimization-based K-NN classification imputation for Region II.
Table 8 Performance measures based on different distance metrics used in optimal K-means cluster imputation for regions I and II.
Table 9 Performance measures based on different methods for regions I and II.
Table 10 Ranking of different imputation methods and their variants for regions I and II.
Fig. 3 Variability of performance measures for real and binary metric-based methods for Region I.
Fig. 4 Variability of performance measures for real and binary metric-based methods for Region II.
Fig. 5 Variability of performance measures for two groups for Region I.
Fig. 6 Variability of performance measures for two groups for Region II.
Table 11 Performance measures based on application of different methods to different base raingauges in Region I.
Table 12 Performance measures based on application of different methods to different base raingauges in Region II.