This paper describes the use of convolutional neural nets (CNN), a type of deep learning, to identify fronts in gridded data, followed by a novel postprocessing method that converts probability grids to objects. Synoptic-scale fronts are often associated with extreme weather in the midlatitudes. Predictors are 1000-mb (1 mb = 1 hPa) grids of wind velocity, temperature, specific humidity, wet-bulb potential temperature, and/or geopotential height from the North American Regional Reanalysis. Labels are human-drawn fronts from Weather Prediction Center bulletins. We present two experiments to optimize parameters of the CNN and object conversion. To evaluate our system, we compare the objects (predicted warm and cold fronts) with human-analyzed warm and cold fronts, matching fronts of the same type within a 100- or 250-km neighborhood distance. At 250 km our system obtains a probability of detection of 0.73, success ratio of 0.65 (or false-alarm rate of 0.35), and critical success index of 0.52. These values drastically outperform the baseline, which is a traditional method from numerical frontal analysis. Our system is not intended to replace human meteorologists, but to provide an objective method that can be applied consistently and easily to a large number of cases. Our system could be used, for example, to create climatologies and quantify the spread in forecast frontal properties across members of a numerical weather prediction ensemble.
Toward Operational Real-Time Identification of Frontal Boundaries Using Machine Learning
We present and evaluate a deep learning first-guess front-identification system that identifies cold, warm, stationary, and occluded fronts. Frontal boundaries play a key role in the daily weather around the world. Human-drawn fronts provided by the National Weather Service’s Weather Prediction Center, Ocean Prediction Center, Tropical Analysis and Forecast Branch, and Honolulu Forecast Office are treated as ground-truth labels for training the deep learning models. The models are trained using ERA5 data with variables known to be important for distinguishing frontal boundaries, including temperature, equivalent potential temperature, and wind velocity and direction at multiple heights. Using a 250-km neighborhood over the contiguous U.S. domain, our best models achieve critical success index scores of 0.60 for cold fronts, 0.43 for warm fronts, 0.48 for stationary fronts, 0.45 for occluded fronts, and 0.71 using a binary classification system (front/no front), whereas scores over the full unified surface analysis domain were lower. For cold and warm fronts and binary classification, these scores significantly outperform prior baseline methods that utilize 250-km neighborhoods. These first-guess deep learning algorithms can be used by forecasters to locate frontal boundaries more effectively and expedite the frontal analysis process.
Fronts are boundaries that affect the weather that people experience daily. Currently, forecasters must identify these boundaries through manual analysis. We have developed an automated machine learning method for detecting cold, warm, stationary, and occluded fronts. Our automated method provides forecasters with an additional tool to expedite the frontal analysis process.
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10428706
- Publisher / Repository:
- American Meteorological Society
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Artificial Intelligence for the Earth Systems
- Volume:
- 2
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 2769-7525
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
more » « less
Abstract Extreme precipitation events, including those associated with weather fronts, have wide‐ranging impacts across the world. Here we use a deep learning algorithm to identify weather fronts in high resolution Community Earth System Model (CESM) simulations over the contiguous United States (CONUS), and evaluate the results using observational and reanalysis products. We further compare results between CESM simulations using present‐day and future climate forcing, to study how these features might change with climate change. We find that detected front frequencies in CESM have seasonally varying spatial patterns and responses to climate change and are found to be associated with modeled changes in large scale circulation such as the jet stream. We also associate the detected fronts with precipitation and find that total and extreme frontal precipitation mostly decreases with climate change, with some seasonal and regional differences. Decreases in Northern Hemisphere summer frontal precipitation are largely driven by changes in the frequency of different front types, especially cold and stationary fronts. On the other hand, Northern Hemisphere winter exhibits some regional increases in frontal precipitation that are largely driven by changes in frontal precipitation intensity. While CONUS mean and extreme precipitation generally increase during all seasons in these climate change simulations, the likelihood of frontal extreme precipitation decreases, demonstrating that extreme precipitation has seasonally varying sources and mechanisms that will continue to evolve with climate change.
-
This study analyzes an ensemble of numerical simulations of a heavy rainfall event east of Taiwan on 9 June 2020. Heavy rainfall was produced by quasi-stationary back-building mesoscale convective systems (MCS) associated with a mei-yu front. Global model forecast skill was poor in location and intensity of rainfall. The mesoscale ensemble showed liminal conditions between heavy rainfall or little to no rainfall. The two most accurate and two least accurate ensemble members are selected for analysis via validation against radar-estimated rainfall observations. All members feature moist soundings with low levels of free convection (LFC) and sufficient instability for deep convection. We find that stronger gradients in 100-m θe and θv in the most accurate members associated with a near-surface frontal boundary focus the lifting mechanism for deep, moist convection and enhanced rainfall. As the simulations progress, stronger southerly winds in the least accurate members advect drier mid-level air into the region of interest and shift the near-surface boundary further north and west. Analysis of the verification ensemble mean analysis reveals a strong near-surface frontal boundary similarly positioned as in the most accurate members and dry air aloft more similar to that in the least accurate members, suggesting that the positioning of the frontal boundary is more critical to accurately reproducing rainfall patterns and intensity in this case. The analyses suggest that subtle details in the simulation of frontal boundaries and mesoscale flow structures can lead to bifurcations in producing extreme or almost no rainfall. Implications for improved probabilistic forecasts of heavy rainfall events will be discussed.more » « less
-
Atmospheric cold fronts can periodically generate storm surges and affect sediment transport in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (NGOM). In this paper, we evaluate water circulation spatiotemporal patterns induced by six atmospheric cold front events in the Wax Lake Delta (WLD) in coastal Louisiana using the 3-D hydrodynamic model ECOM-si. Model simulations show that channelized and inter-distributary water flow is significantly impacted by cold fronts. Water volume transport throughout the deltaic channel network is not just constrained to the main channels but also occurs laterally across channels accounting for about a quarter of the total flow. Results show that a significant landward flow occurs across the delta prior to the frontal passage, resulting in a positive storm surge on the coast. The along-channel current velocity dominates while cross-channel water transport occurs at the southwest lobe during the post-frontal stage. Depending on local weather conditions, the cold-front-induced flushing event lasts for 1.7 to 7 days and can flush 32–76% of the total water mass out of the system, a greater range of variability than previous reports. The magnitude of water flushed out of the system is not necessarily dependent on the duration of the frontal events. An energy partitioning analysis shows that the relative importance of subtidal energy (10–45% of the total) and tidal energy (20–70%) varies substantially from station to station and is linked to the weather impact. It is important to note that within the WLD region, the weather-induced subtidal energy (46–66% of the total) is much greater than the diurnal tidal energy (13–25% of the total). The wind associated with cold fronts in winter is the main factor controlling water circulation in the WLD and is a major driver in the spatial configuration of the channel network and delta progradation rates.more » « less
-
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
