基于深度学习的地面气象雷达数据定量降水临近预报关键因素研究

IF 4 3区 地球科学 Q1 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Daehyeon Han, Jungho Im, Yeji Shin, Juhyun Lee
{"title":"基于深度学习的地面气象雷达数据定量降水临近预报关键因素研究","authors":"Daehyeon Han, Jungho Im, Yeji Shin, Juhyun Lee","doi":"10.5194/gmd-16-5895-2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Quantitative precipitation nowcasting (QPN) can help to reduce the enormous socioeconomic damage caused by extreme weather. The QPN has been a challenging topic due to rapid atmospheric variability. Recent QPN studies have proposed data-driven models using deep learning (DL) and ground weather radar. Previous studies have primarily focused on developing DL models, but other factors for DL-QPN have not been thoroughly investigated. This study examined four critical factors in DL-QPN, focusing on their impact on forecasting performance. These factors are the deep learning model (U-Net, as well as a convolutional long short-term memory, or ConvLSTM), input past sequence length (1, 2, or 3 h), loss function (mean squared error, MSE, or balanced MSE, BMSE), and ensemble aggregation. A total of 24 schemes were designed to measure the effects of each factor using weather radar data from South Korea with a maximum lead time of 2 h. A long-term evaluation was conducted for the summers of 2020–2022 from an operational perspective, and a heavy rainfall event was analyzed to examine an extreme case. In both evaluations, U-Net outperformed ConvLSTM in overall accuracy metrics. For the critical success index (CSI), MSE loss yielded better results for both models in the weak intensity range (≤ 5 mm h−1), whereas BMSE loss was more effective for heavier precipitation. There was a small trend where a longer input time (3 h) gave better results in terms of MSE and BMSE, but this effect was less significant than other factors. The ensemble by averaging results of using MSE and BMSE losses provided balanced performance across all aspects, suggesting a potential strategy to improve skill scores when implemented with optimal weights for each member. All DL-QPN schemes exhibited problems with underestimation and overestimation when trained by MSE and BMSE losses, respectively. All DL models produced blurry results as the lead time increased, while the non-DL model retained detail in prediction. With a comprehensive comparison of these crucial factors, this study offers a modeling strategy for future DL-QPN work using weather radar data.","PeriodicalId":12799,"journal":{"name":"Geoscientific Model Development","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Key factors for quantitative precipitation nowcasting using ground weather radar data based on deep learning\",\"authors\":\"Daehyeon Han, Jungho Im, Yeji Shin, Juhyun Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.5194/gmd-16-5895-2023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. Quantitative precipitation nowcasting (QPN) can help to reduce the enormous socioeconomic damage caused by extreme weather. The QPN has been a challenging topic due to rapid atmospheric variability. Recent QPN studies have proposed data-driven models using deep learning (DL) and ground weather radar. Previous studies have primarily focused on developing DL models, but other factors for DL-QPN have not been thoroughly investigated. This study examined four critical factors in DL-QPN, focusing on their impact on forecasting performance. These factors are the deep learning model (U-Net, as well as a convolutional long short-term memory, or ConvLSTM), input past sequence length (1, 2, or 3 h), loss function (mean squared error, MSE, or balanced MSE, BMSE), and ensemble aggregation. A total of 24 schemes were designed to measure the effects of each factor using weather radar data from South Korea with a maximum lead time of 2 h. A long-term evaluation was conducted for the summers of 2020–2022 from an operational perspective, and a heavy rainfall event was analyzed to examine an extreme case. In both evaluations, U-Net outperformed ConvLSTM in overall accuracy metrics. For the critical success index (CSI), MSE loss yielded better results for both models in the weak intensity range (≤ 5 mm h−1), whereas BMSE loss was more effective for heavier precipitation. There was a small trend where a longer input time (3 h) gave better results in terms of MSE and BMSE, but this effect was less significant than other factors. The ensemble by averaging results of using MSE and BMSE losses provided balanced performance across all aspects, suggesting a potential strategy to improve skill scores when implemented with optimal weights for each member. All DL-QPN schemes exhibited problems with underestimation and overestimation when trained by MSE and BMSE losses, respectively. All DL models produced blurry results as the lead time increased, while the non-DL model retained detail in prediction. With a comprehensive comparison of these crucial factors, this study offers a modeling strategy for future DL-QPN work using weather radar data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12799,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geoscientific Model Development\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geoscientific Model Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5895-2023\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoscientific Model Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5895-2023","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要定量降水临近预报(QPN)有助于减少极端天气造成的巨大社会经济损失。由于大气的快速变化,QPN一直是一个具有挑战性的课题。最近的QPN研究提出了使用深度学习(DL)和地面气象雷达的数据驱动模型。以往的研究主要集中在开发DL- qpn模型上,但DL- qpn的其他因素尚未得到深入研究。本研究考察了DL-QPN中的四个关键因素,重点研究了它们对预测性能的影响。这些因素是深度学习模型(U-Net,以及卷积长短期记忆,或ConvLSTM),输入过去的序列长度(1,2,3小时),损失函数(均方误差,MSE,或平衡MSE, BMSE)和集成聚合。利用韩国气象雷达数据,共设计了24个方案来测量每个因素的影响,最大提前时间为2小时。从业务角度对2020-2022年夏季进行了长期评估,并分析了一次强降雨事件以检查极端情况。在这两项评估中,U-Net在总体精度指标上优于ConvLSTM。对于临界成功指数(CSI),两种模式在弱强度范围内(≤5 mm h−1)均能获得较好的结果,而在较强降水条件下,BMSE损失更为有效。有一个小的趋势,即较长的输入时间(3小时)在MSE和BMSE方面的结果更好,但这种影响不如其他因素显著。通过平均使用MSE和BMSE损失的结果来集成,在所有方面提供了平衡的性能,这表明当为每个成员实现最佳权重时,可以提高技能分数的潜在策略。所有DL-QPN方案在分别用MSE和BMSE损失训练时都表现出低估和高估的问题。随着提前期的增加,所有深度学习模型的预测结果都很模糊,而非深度学习模型在预测中保留了细节。通过对这些关键因素的综合比较,本研究为未来使用气象雷达数据的DL-QPN工作提供了一种建模策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Key factors for quantitative precipitation nowcasting using ground weather radar data based on deep learning
Abstract. Quantitative precipitation nowcasting (QPN) can help to reduce the enormous socioeconomic damage caused by extreme weather. The QPN has been a challenging topic due to rapid atmospheric variability. Recent QPN studies have proposed data-driven models using deep learning (DL) and ground weather radar. Previous studies have primarily focused on developing DL models, but other factors for DL-QPN have not been thoroughly investigated. This study examined four critical factors in DL-QPN, focusing on their impact on forecasting performance. These factors are the deep learning model (U-Net, as well as a convolutional long short-term memory, or ConvLSTM), input past sequence length (1, 2, or 3 h), loss function (mean squared error, MSE, or balanced MSE, BMSE), and ensemble aggregation. A total of 24 schemes were designed to measure the effects of each factor using weather radar data from South Korea with a maximum lead time of 2 h. A long-term evaluation was conducted for the summers of 2020–2022 from an operational perspective, and a heavy rainfall event was analyzed to examine an extreme case. In both evaluations, U-Net outperformed ConvLSTM in overall accuracy metrics. For the critical success index (CSI), MSE loss yielded better results for both models in the weak intensity range (≤ 5 mm h−1), whereas BMSE loss was more effective for heavier precipitation. There was a small trend where a longer input time (3 h) gave better results in terms of MSE and BMSE, but this effect was less significant than other factors. The ensemble by averaging results of using MSE and BMSE losses provided balanced performance across all aspects, suggesting a potential strategy to improve skill scores when implemented with optimal weights for each member. All DL-QPN schemes exhibited problems with underestimation and overestimation when trained by MSE and BMSE losses, respectively. All DL models produced blurry results as the lead time increased, while the non-DL model retained detail in prediction. With a comprehensive comparison of these crucial factors, this study offers a modeling strategy for future DL-QPN work using weather radar data.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Geoscientific Model Development
Geoscientific Model Development GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
9.80%
发文量
352
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Geoscientific Model Development (GMD) is an international scientific journal dedicated to the publication and public discussion of the description, development, and evaluation of numerical models of the Earth system and its components. The following manuscript types can be considered for peer-reviewed publication: * geoscientific model descriptions, from statistical models to box models to GCMs; * development and technical papers, describing developments such as new parameterizations or technical aspects of running models such as the reproducibility of results; * new methods for assessment of models, including work on developing new metrics for assessing model performance and novel ways of comparing model results with observational data; * papers describing new standard experiments for assessing model performance or novel ways of comparing model results with observational data; * model experiment descriptions, including experimental details and project protocols; * full evaluations of previously published models.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信