Inductive biases in deep learning models for weather prediction
0
🤿
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper discusses the growing use of deep learning in the Earth sciences, particularly in the field of weather prediction.
- Deep learning-based weather prediction (DLWP) models have made significant progress in recent years, achieving forecast skills comparable to established numerical weather prediction models while requiring less computational power.
- The paper reviews and analyzes the inductive biases of state-of-the-art DLWP models, focusing on five key design elements: data selection, learning objective, loss function, architecture, and optimization method.
Plain English Explanation
Deep learning is a powerful tool that has become increasingly popular in the Earth sciences. It allows researchers to create data-driven models of complex Earth system processes, such as weather prediction. In the last few years, deep learning-based weather prediction (DLWP) models have made significant advancements, and they can now produce weather forecasts that are just as accurate as those from traditional numerical weather prediction models, but with much less computational power required.
To train these DLWP models effectively, the researchers need to incorporate certain design choices, known as inductive biases, that help the models learn faster and perform better on unseen data. These inductive biases are related to how the data is selected, the objective the model is trying to achieve, the loss function used to guide the training, the architecture of the model itself, and the optimization method used to update the model's parameters.
While these inductive biases play a crucial role in the success of DLWP models, they are often not explicitly stated, and their contribution to the model's performance is not always clear. This paper aims to review and analyze the inductive biases of state-of-the-art DLWP models, with the goal of identifying the most important ones and exploring ways to develop even more efficient and probabilistic DLWP models in the future.
Technical Explanation
The paper examines the inductive biases of deep learning-based weather prediction (DLWP) models, which have made significant progress in recent years. These models have achieved forecast skills comparable to established numerical weather prediction models, while requiring less computational power.
The authors review and analyze the inductive biases of state-of-the-art DLWP models with respect to five key design elements:
-
Data Selection: The choice of input data and the way it is preprocessed can introduce important inductive biases that shape the model's learning and generalization capabilities. For example, incorporating site-specific information can improve the model's ability to make accurate temperature and humidity forecasts.
-
Learning Objective: The objective the model is trained to optimize, such as minimizing the mean squared error between predicted and observed weather variables, can encode certain assumptions about the underlying processes and the desired model behavior.
-
Loss Function: The choice of loss function, which quantifies the model's performance during training, can introduce inductive biases that affect the model's learning and generalization. Conditional diffusion models, for instance, can be used to address biases in the model's predictions.
-
Architecture: The design of the model's neural network architecture, such as the use of convolutional layers or recurrent connections, can encode structural assumptions about the spatial and temporal dependencies in the data.
-
Optimization Method: The optimization algorithm used to update the model's parameters during training, such as stochastic gradient descent or Adam, can also introduce inductive biases that influence the model's learning and performance.
By analyzing these key design elements, the authors aim to identify the most important inductive biases and explore avenues towards more efficient and probabilistic DLWP models.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a comprehensive review of the inductive biases present in state-of-the-art deep learning-based weather prediction (DLWP) models. The authors do an excellent job of highlighting the importance of these biases in shaping the model's learning and generalization capabilities, and they identify several promising directions for future research.
One potential limitation of the study is that it focuses primarily on the theoretical aspects of inductive biases, without providing a detailed empirical evaluation of their impact on model performance. It would be helpful to see more concrete examples or case studies demonstrating how different inductive biases affect the accuracy, robustness, and interpretability of DLWP models.
Additionally, the paper does not address the potential challenges in explicitly defining and incorporating inductive biases into DLWP models. As the authors note, these biases are often not stated explicitly, and their contribution to model performance may not be immediately clear. Developing systematic approaches for identifying, encoding, and evaluating inductive biases could be an important area for future research.
Despite these minor limitations, the paper provides a valuable contribution to the literature on deep learning in the Earth sciences, particularly in the context of weather prediction. The insights and recommendations presented in the paper can serve as a useful guide for researchers and practitioners looking to develop more efficient and reliable DLWP models. Exploring the potential of advanced deep learning techniques, such as transformers, could also be a promising direction for further improving the performance and interpretability of DLWP models.
Conclusion
The paper highlights the growing importance of deep learning in the Earth sciences, particularly in the field of weather prediction. Deep learning-based weather prediction (DLWP) models have made significant strides in recent years, achieving forecast skills comparable to established numerical weather prediction models while requiring less computational power.
The key contribution of this paper is its analysis of the inductive biases present in state-of-the-art DLWP models. By examining the design choices related to data selection, learning objective, loss function, architecture, and optimization method, the authors identify the most important inductive biases and explore ways to develop even more efficient and probabilistic DLWP models.
This work has important implications for the continued advancement of deep learning in the Earth sciences. By better understanding the role of inductive biases, researchers can design more robust and reliable DLWP models that can provide improved forecasting capabilities and inform future technological advancements in the field. The insights from this paper can also help validate the performance of deep learning weather forecast models and guide the development of more explainable and site-specific deep learning models for Earth system processes.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🤿
0
Inductive biases in deep learning models for weather prediction
Jannik Thuemmel (University of Tubingen), Matthias Karlbauer (University of Tubingen), Sebastian Otte (University of Tubingen), Christiane Zarfl (University of Tubingen), Georg Martius (Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems), Nicole Ludwig (University of Tubingen), Thomas Scholten (University of Tubingen), Ulrich Friedrich (Deutscher Wetterdienst), Volker Wulfmeyer (University of Hohenheim), Bedartha Goswami (University of Tubingen), Martin V. Butz (University of Tubingen)
Deep learning has gained immense popularity in the Earth sciences as it enables us to formulate purely data-driven models of complex Earth system processes. Deep learning-based weather prediction (DLWP) models have made significant progress in the last few years, achieving forecast skills comparable to established numerical weather prediction models with comparatively lesser computational costs. In order to train accurate, reliable, and tractable DLWP models with several millions of parameters, the model design needs to incorporate suitable inductive biases that encode structural assumptions about the data and the modelled processes. When chosen appropriately, these biases enable faster learning and better generalisation to unseen data. Although inductive biases play a crucial role in successful DLWP models, they are often not stated explicitly and their contribution to model performance remains unclear. Here, we review and analyse the inductive biases of state-of-the-art DLWP models with respect to five key design elements: data selection, learning objective, loss function, architecture, and optimisation method. We identify the most important inductive biases and highlight potential avenues towards more efficient and probabilistic DLWP models.
Read more5/1/2024
0
Analyzing and Exploring Training Recipes for Large-Scale Transformer-Based Weather Prediction
Jared D. Willard, Peter Harrington, Shashank Subramanian, Ankur Mahesh, Travis A. O'Brien, William D. Collins
The rapid rise of deep learning (DL) in numerical weather prediction (NWP) has led to a proliferation of models which forecast atmospheric variables with comparable or superior skill than traditional physics-based NWP. However, among these leading DL models, there is a wide variance in both the training settings and architecture used. Further, the lack of thorough ablation studies makes it hard to discern which components are most critical to success. In this work, we show that it is possible to attain high forecast skill even with relatively off-the-shelf architectures, simple training procedures, and moderate compute budgets. Specifically, we train a minimally modified SwinV2 transformer on ERA5 data, and find that it attains superior forecast skill when compared against IFS. We present some ablations on key aspects of the training pipeline, exploring different loss functions, model sizes and depths, and multi-step fine-tuning to investigate their effect. We also examine the model performance with metrics beyond the typical ACC and RMSE, and investigate how the performance scales with model size.
Read more5/1/2024
0
Data driven weather forecasts trained and initialised directly from observations
Anthony McNally, Christian Lessig, Peter Lean, Eulalie Boucher, Mihai Alexe, Ewan Pinnington, Matthew Chantry, Simon Lang, Chris Burrows, Marcin Chrust, Florian Pinault, Ethel Villeneuve, Niels Bormann, Sean Healy
Skilful Machine Learned weather forecasts have challenged our approach to numerical weather prediction, demonstrating competitive performance compared to traditional physics-based approaches. Data-driven systems have been trained to forecast future weather by learning from long historical records of past weather such as the ECMWF ERA5. These datasets have been made freely available to the wider research community, including the commercial sector, which has been a major factor in the rapid rise of ML forecast systems and the levels of accuracy they have achieved. However, historical reanalyses used for training and real-time analyses used for initial conditions are produced by data assimilation, an optimal blending of observations with a physics-based forecast model. As such, many ML forecast systems have an implicit and unquantified dependence on the physics-based models they seek to challenge. Here we propose a new approach, training a neural network to predict future weather purely from historical observations with no dependence on reanalyses. We use raw observations to initialise a model of the atmosphere (in observation space) learned directly from the observations themselves. Forecasts of crucial weather parameters (such as surface temperature and wind) are obtained by predicting weather parameter observations (e.g. SYNOP surface data) at future times and arbitrary locations. We present preliminary results on forecasting observations 12-hours into the future. These already demonstrate successful learning of time evolutions of the physical processes captured in real observations. We argue that this new approach, by staying purely in observation space, avoids many of the challenges of traditional data assimilation, can exploit a wider range of observations and is readily expanded to simultaneous forecasting of the full Earth system (atmosphere, land, ocean and composition).
Read more7/23/2024
0
Comparing and Contrasting Deep Learning Weather Prediction Backbones on Navier-Stokes and Atmospheric Dynamics
Matthias Karlbauer, Danielle C. Maddix, Abdul Fatir Ansari, Boran Han, Gaurav Gupta, Yuyang Wang, Andrew Stuart, Michael W. Mahoney
Remarkable progress in the development of Deep Learning Weather Prediction (DLWP) models positions them to become competitive with traditional numerical weather prediction (NWP) models. Indeed, a wide number of DLWP architectures -- based on various backbones, including U-Net, Transformer, Graph Neural Network (GNN), and Fourier Neural Operator (FNO) -- have demonstrated their potential at forecasting atmospheric states. However, due to differences in training protocols, forecast horizons, and data choices, it remains unclear which (if any) of these methods and architectures are most suitable for weather forecasting and for future model development. Here, we step back and provide a detailed empirical analysis, under controlled conditions, comparing and contrasting the most prominent DLWP models, along with their backbones. We accomplish this by predicting synthetic two-dimensional incompressible Navier-Stokes and real-world global weather dynamics. In terms of accuracy, memory consumption, and runtime, our results illustrate various tradeoffs. For example, on synthetic data, we observe favorable performance of FNO; and on the real-world WeatherBench dataset, our results demonstrate the suitability of ConvLSTM and SwinTransformer for short-to-mid-ranged forecasts. For long-ranged weather rollouts of up to 365 days, we observe superior stability and physical soundness in architectures that formulate a spherical data representation, i.e., GraphCast and Spherical FNO. In addition, we observe that all of these model backbones ``saturate,'' i.e., none of them exhibit so-called neural scaling, which highlights an important direction for future work on these and related models.
Read more7/22/2024