skip to main content


Title: Assessing the Potential of Deep Learning for Emulating Cloud Superparameterization in Climate Models With Real‐Geography Boundary Conditions
Abstract

We explore the potential of feed‐forward deep neural networks (DNNs) for emulating cloud superparameterization in realistic geography, using offline fits to data from the superparameterized community atmospheric model. To identify the network architecture of greatest skill, we formally optimize hyperparameters using ∼250 trials. Our DNN explains over 70% of the temporal variance at the 15‐min sampling scale throughout the mid‐to‐upper troposphere. Autocorrelation timescale analysis compared against DNN skill suggests the less good fit in the tropical, marine boundary layer is driven by neural network difficulty emulating fast, stochastic signals in convection. However, spectral analysis in the temporal domain indicates skillful emulation of signals on diurnal to synoptic scales. A closer look at the diurnal cycle reveals correct emulation of land‐sea contrasts and vertical structure in the heating and moistening fields, but some distortion of precipitation. Sensitivity tests targeting precipitation skill reveal complementary effects of adding positive constraints versus hyperparameter tuning, motivating the use of both in the future. A first attempt to force an offline land model with DNN emulated atmospheric fields produces reassuring results further supporting neural network emulation viability in real‐geography settings. Overall, the fit skill is competitive with recent attempts by sophisticated Residual and Convolutional Neural Network architectures trained on added information, including memory of past states. Our results confirm the parameterizability of superparameterized convection with continents through machine learning and we highlight the advantages of casting this problem locally in space and time for accurate emulation and hopefully quick implementation of hybrid climate models.

 
more » « less
Award ID(s):
1835863 1734164 1633631
NSF-PAR ID:
10360366
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  
Publisher / Repository:
DOI PREFIX: 10.1029
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
Volume:
13
Issue:
5
ISSN:
1942-2466
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract

    With the recent advances in data science, machine learning has been increasingly applied to convection and cloud parameterizations in global climate models (GCMs). This study extends the work of Han et al. (2020,https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002076) and uses an ensemble of 32‐layer deep convolutional residual neural networks, referred to as ResCu‐en, to emulate convection and cloud processes simulated by a superparameterized GCM, SPCAM. ResCu‐en predicts GCM grid‐scale temperature and moisture tendencies, and cloud liquid and ice water contents from moist physics processes. The surface rainfall is derived from the column‐integrated moisture tendency. The prediction uncertainty inherent in deep learning algorithms in emulating the moist physics is reduced by ensemble averaging. Results in 1‐year independent offline validation show that ResCu‐en has high prediction accuracy for all output variables, both in the current climate and in a warmer climate with +4K sea surface temperature. The analysis of different neural net configurations shows that the success to generalize in a warmer climate is attributed to convective memory and the 1‐dimensional convolution layers incorporated into ResCu‐en. We further implement a member of ResCu‐en into CAM5 with real world geography and run the neural‐network‐enabled CAM5 (NCAM) for 5 years without encountering any numerical integration instability. The simulation generally captures the global distribution of the mean precipitation, with a better simulation of precipitation intensity and diurnal cycle. However, there are large biases in temperature and moisture in high latitudes. These results highlight the importance of convective memory and demonstrate the potential for machine learning to enhance climate modeling.

     
    more » « less
  2. null (Ed.)
    Abstract Neural networks are a promising technique for parameterizing subgrid-scale physics (e.g., moist atmospheric convection) in coarse-resolution climate models, but their lack of interpretability and reliability prevents widespread adoption. For instance, it is not fully understood why neural network parameterizations often cause dramatic instability when coupled to atmospheric fluid dynamics. This paper introduces tools for interpreting their behavior that are customized to the parameterization task. First, we assess the nonlinear sensitivity of a neural network to lower-tropospheric stability and the midtropospheric moisture, two widely studied controls of moist convection. Second, we couple the linearized response functions of these neural networks to simplified gravity wave dynamics, and analytically diagnose the corresponding phase speeds, growth rates, wavelengths, and spatial structures. To demonstrate their versatility, these techniques are tested on two sets of neural networks, one trained with a superparameterized version of the Community Atmosphere Model (SPCAM) and the second with a near-global cloud-resolving model (GCRM). Even though the SPCAM simulation has a warmer climate than the cloud-resolving model, both neural networks predict stronger heating/drying in moist and unstable environments, which is consistent with observations. Moreover, the spectral analysis can predict that instability occurs when GCMs are coupled to networks that support gravity waves that are unstable and have phase speeds larger than 5 m s −1 . In contrast, standing unstable modes do not cause catastrophic instability. Using these tools, differences between the SPCAM-trained versus GCRM-trained neural networks are analyzed, and strategies to incrementally improve both of their coupled online performance unveiled. 
    more » « less
  3. Abstract

    Short‐term precipitation forecasts are critical to regional water management, particularly in the Western U.S. where atmospheric rivers can be predicted reliably days in advance. However, spatial error in these forecasts may reduce their utility when the costs of false positives and negatives differ greatly. Here we investigate whether deep learning methods can leverage spatial patterns in precipitation forecasts to (a) improve the skill of predicting the occurrence of precipitation events at lead times from 1 to 14 days, and (b) balance the tradeoff between the rate of false negatives and false positives by modifying the discrimination threshold of the classifiers. This approach is demonstrated for the Sacramento River Basin, California, using the Global Ensemble Forecast System (GEFS) v2 precipitation fields as input to convolutional neural network (CNN) and multi‐layer perceptron models. Results show that the deep learning models do not significantly improve the overall skill (F1 score) relative to the ensemble mean GEFS forecast with bias‐corrected threshold. However, additional analysis of the CNN models suggests they often correct missed predictions from GEFS by compensating for spatial error at longer lead times. Additionally, the deep learning models provide the ability to adjust the rate of false positives and negatives based on the ratio of costs. Finally, analysis of the network activations (saliency) indicates spatial patterns consistent with physical understanding of atmospheric river events in this region, lending additional confidence in the ability of the method to support water management applications.

     
    more » « less
  4. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9. 
    more » « less
  5. Abstract

    A combination of cloud-permitting model (CPM) simulations, satellite, and reanalysis data are used to test whether the diurnal cycle in surface temperature has a significant impact on the intensity of deep convection as measured by high-percentile updraft velocities, lightning, and CAPE. The land–ocean contrast in lightning activity shows that convective intensity varies between land and ocean independently from convective quantity. Thus, a mechanism that explains the land–ocean contrast must be able to do so even after controlling for precipitation variations. Motivated by the land–ocean contrast, we use idealized CPM simulations to test the impact of the diurnal cycle on high-percentile updrafts. In simulations, updrafts are somewhat enhanced due to large-scale precipitation enhancement by the diurnal cycle. To control for large-scale precipitation, we use statistical sampling techniques. After controlling for precipitation enhancement, the diurnal cycle does not affect convective intensities. To explain why sampled updrafts are not enhanced, we note that CAPE is also not increased, likely due to boundary layer quasi equilibrium (BLQE) occurring over our land area. Analysis of BLQE in terms of net positive and negative mass flux finds that boundary layer entrainment, and even more importantly downdrafts, account for most of the moist static energy (MSE) sink that is balancing surface fluxes. Using ERA-Interim data, we also find qualitative evidence for BLQE over land in the real world, as high percentiles of CAPE are not greater over land than over ocean.

     
    more » « less