## 3 Results
### Network Visualization  
Subsequently, Figures 2 and 3 visualize the networks derived from the association metrics \(M\)1 and \(M\)2, respectively, outlined in the preceding section. This task has been facilitated by Gephi 0.9.2. [[https://gephi.org/](https://gephi.org/)]([https://gephi.org/](https://gephi.org/)), (accessed on 2 October 2023), an open-source software renowned for its adeptness in network visualization. Figures 2a,b and 3a,b depict two distinguishable layouts characterized by Fruchterman Reingold and Atlas Force strategies, respectively and configured according to parameters collected in Tables 11 and 12. Fruchterman distribution prioritizes maintaining the equidistance between the nodes, while Force Atlas 2 requires adapting the configuration parameters to find a balance to avoid overlapping. In parallel, coloration and shaping of nodes follow computed centrality metrics detailed in Tables 13 and 14. More exactly, toning and sizing are proportional to the _Degree_ statistics in Figures 2a and 3a, while in Figures 2b and 3b depend on _Weighted Degree_ and _pageranks_ centrality results. The construction of the network derived from \(M\)1 metric considers the total original data set, without any reduction, and therefore, the average degree of all nodes is the same (see Table 13), whereas the network associated with the \(M\)2 metric implies the reduction to the 0.1 of the data set as specified in Section 3.1.2, resulting in distinct average degree values (see Table 14). These measure differences directly affect the node sizes and coloring variation \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Antecedents** & **Consequents** & **a Sup** & **c Sup** & **Sup** & **Conf** & **Lift** & **Lev** \\ \hline precip cum & max temp & 0.88 & 0.36 & 0.33 & 0.37 & 1.05 & 0.02 \\ max temp & precip cum & 0.36 & 0.88 & 0.33 & 0.93 & 1.05 & 0.02 \\ sea level & lat & 0.32 & 0.90 & 0.29 & 0.91 & 1.01 & 0.00 \\ lat & sea level & 0.90 & 0.32 & 0.29 & 0.33 & 1.01 & 0.00 \\ precip cum & max temp, lat & 0.88 & 0.29 & 0.27 & 0.31 & 1.04 & 0.01 \\ max temp, lat & precip cum & 0.29 & 0.88 & 0.27 & 0.92 & 1.04 & 0.01 \\ lat & REDcum & 0.90 & 0.27 & 0.26 & 0.29 & 1.10 & 0.02 \\ REDcum & lat & 0.27 & 0.90 & 0.26 & 0.99 & 1.10 & 0.02 \\ lat & dewp temp & 0.90 & 0.28 & 0.26 & 0.29 & 1.03 & 0.01 \\ dewp temp & lat & 0.28 & 0.90 & 0.26 & 0.92 & 1.03 & 0.01 \\ precip cum & dewp temp & 0.88 & 0.28 & 0.25 & 0.28 & 1.02 & 0.00 \\ dewp temp & precip cum & 0.28 & 0.88 & 0.25 & 0.90 & 1.02 & 0.00 \\ NDVIcum & lat & 0.26 & 0.90 & 0.25 & 0.94 & 1.04 & 0.01 \\ lat & NDVIcum & 0.90 & 0.26 & 0.25 & 0.27 & 1.04 & 0.01 \\ precip cum & REDcum & 0.88 & 0.27 & 0.24 & 0.28 & 1.03 & 0.01 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: RMSE threshold 0.5778, 1%. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Antecedents** & **Consequents** & **a Sup** & **c Sup** & **Sup** & **Conf** & **Lift** & **Lev** \\ \hline max temp & precip cum & 0.32 & 0.71 & 0.23 & 0.73 & 1.02 & 0.00 \\ precip cum & max temp & 0.71 & 0.32 & 0.23 & 0.33 & 1.02 & 0.00 \\ lat & slope & 0.67 & 0.29 & 0.20 & 0.29 & 1.00 & 0.00 \\ slope & lat & 0.29 & 0.67 & 0.20 & 0.67 & 1.00 & 0.00 \\ EVICum & precip cum & 0.20 & 0.71 & 0.17 & 0.84 & 1.17 & 0.03 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: RMSE threshold 0.59993, 10%. of Figures 2a and 3a, where the first one contains equal shapes and colors for all nodes. Regarding the evolution from Fruchterman to Force Atlas 2 layout, a noticeable change is observed in Figure 2, since the most relevant nodes according to the centrality metrics of Table A3 are relocated in the center of the network. The gravity center contains the couple _precip cum_, _slope_ while features as _lat_, _surface pressure_ compose the outer circumference of the center. In this way, the _core_ of the features is visually highlighted. On the contrary, in Figure 3, layout adjustment's effect seems to be insignificant.