Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Data-driven Surface Solar Irradiance Estimation using Neural Operators at Global Scale

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Pre-training a neural operator on reanalysis then fine-tuning it on satellite data gives more accurate global 6-hourly surface solar irradiance estimates than training on either data source alone, with a 31.5% RMSE improvement on the…

desk verdict Fine-tuning an ERA5-trained SSI model on SARAH3 is a real, publishable result; the forecasting claim in the abstract is not supported by any experiment in the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08843 v1 pith:E5M3JY6U submitted 2024-11-13 physics.ao-ph cs.AI

Alberto Carpentieri , Jussi Leinonen , Jeff Adie , Boris Bonev , Doris Folini , Farah Hariri This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ao-phcs.AI
keywords surfacesolarirradianceforecastingneuraloperatorsAFNOfine-tuningERA5SARAH3globalweathermodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a single global machine-learning model can estimate 6-hourly surface solar irradiance—the sunlight reaching the ground—from the atmospheric variables that numerical weather prediction and AI weather models routinely forecast, without needing real-time satellite or ground observations. The model is an Adaptive Fourier Neural Operator, a neural network that processes global fields in Fourier space, trained on 37 years of ERA5 reanalysis data and then fine-tuned on the satellite-derived SARAH3 product. The central measured finding is that fine-tuning the reanalysis-trained model on satellite data outperforms both training on reanalysis alone and training on satellite data alone: on the SARAH3 validation domain the fine-tuned model reduces RMSE by 31.5% relative to the reanalysis-trained version and by 7.8% relative to the satellite-only version, and at ground stations it beats the reanalysis-trained model by 8.2% RMSE. If the result holds, solar-power forecasting can piggyback on advances in weather prediction, producing global multi-day irradiance forecasts from forecast-model output alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the Adaptive Fourier Neural Operator (AFNO), a neural network architecture that mixes spatial information globally by transforming latents with the discrete Fourier transform, applying an MLP, and transforming back; this gives every output pixel access to the whole globe in one pass. Around this, the model uses a symmetric convolutional patch embedder that wraps around longitude to avoid grid-edge artifacts, sinusoidal latitude/longitude embeddings instead of learned positional embeddings, and a solar-zenith-angle conditioning field. The training target is 6-hourly averaged ERA5 surface solar radiation downwards; the loss is latitude-weighted L2, and fine-tuning uses a masked L2 loss restricted to the SARAH3 domain. The argument's mechanism is that the global receptive field encodes the previous six hours of cloud advection from the current atmospheric state, which is what a 6-hour average irradiance estimate requires.

What would settle it

Feed actual forecast fields from SFNO or another weather model into the trained diagnostic model and compare the resulting 6-hourly SSI against ground-station and satellite data across several lead times; if RMSE grows sharply with lead time or far exceeds the errors seen when the model is fed reanalysis fields, the transfer assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a diagnostic neural operator can learn the mapping from atmospheric state to accumulated solar irradiance well enough that pre-training on reanalysis and fine-tuning on satellite observations is a better strategy than training on either data source alone. The paper reports that AFNOf—the ERA5-trained model fine-tuned on SARAH3—achieves a 31.5% lower RMSE than AFNOERA5 and a 7.8% lower RMSE than AFNOSARAH3 when validated against SARAH3 6-hourly fields, and an 8.2% lower RMSE than AFNOERA5 at BSRN ground stations. It further argues that because the model's inputs are only atmospheric variables forecast by weather models, the same diagnostic model can be chained to a prognostic weather model to produce global, 6-hourly SSI forecasts at 0.25° resolution over multi-day lead times, independent of real-time satellite or ground observations. The receptive-field analysis is part of the same argument: the global receptive field of AFNO lets it capture cloud advection over the previous six hours, which a point-wise MLP cannot do and a convolutional U-Net only partially does.

Load-bearing premise

The model is trained and validated only on past weather maps from the ERA5 dataset, so its ability to forecast from live weather-model predictions assumes those predictions resemble ERA5 maps closely enough that the learned mapping still holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Global 6-hourly SSI forecasts can be produced by chaining the diagnostic model to a weather forecast model, using only variables those models already output, with no real-time satellite or ground data.
  • Fine-tuning on satellite data improves accuracy inside the satellite domain while preserving skill outside it, so regional high-quality data can be folded into a global model.
  • The AFNO-based model outperforms a convolutional U-Net baseline by 10.7% in RMSE and 76% in bias on ERA5 validation, indicating that global receptive field is the relevant architectural property.
  • The same training-and-fine-tuning recipe can be applied to any future weather model's variable set, so SSI forecasting inherits progress in numerical weather prediction and AI weather prediction automatically.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the transfer from reanalysis to forecast-model inputs is the real bottleneck, the reported 31.5% improvement from fine-tuning may understate the benefit in an operational forecast setting, where satellite fine-tuning could also partially correct forecast-model systematic biases.
  • The receptive-field result suggests a testable extension: with a global-receptive-field model, forecast skill should degrade more slowly with lead time than with local models, because cloud advection over the aggregation window is captured rather than approximated.
  • The same architecture could be fine-tuned on other satellite products or on regional high-resolution irradiance networks to build a global model that is locally accurate everywhere, not just where SARAH3 covers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a global, 0.25-degree-resolution neural diagnostic model that takes an atmospheric state at time ti and outputs the 6-hourly averaged surface solar irradiance (SSI) accumulated over [ti−Δ, ti]. The architecture is an AFNO with a symmetry-aware patch embedder, trained on 37 years of ERA5 reanalysis (1980–2016) and evaluated on 2018. The authors compare AFNO against a Pix2Pix U-Net and a pointwise MLP, all trained to emulate ERA5 SSI. They then fine-tune the ERA5-trained model on the SARAH3 satellite product (AFNOf) and compare it with a model trained directly on SARAH3 (AFNOSARAH3). Reported results are that AFNOf improves RMSE by 31.5% over AFNOERA5 and by 7.8% over AFNOSARAH3 on SARAH3 validation, and by 8.2% over AFNOERA5 at BSRN stations within the SARAH3 domain. The abstract and conclusion further claim that the model can be used with NWP and AI weather models such as SFNO to produce stable medium-term global SSI forecasts.

Significance. The central fine-tuning result is an empirical finding that is credible given the held-out 2018 evaluation and the use of independent BSRN ground observations. If the authors add a proper evaluation of forecast-model inputs, the paper would make a useful contribution: it demonstrates a practical way to obtain a global SSI field from a small set of atmospheric prognostic variables without requiring satellite or ground observations at run time, and it shows that regional satellite fine-tuning can improve an ERA5-pretrained model rather than degrade global behavior. The comparison with a UNet and an MLP also gives evidence for the importance of a large receptive field. These strengths should be retained in revision. The current manuscript, however, makes a forecasting claim that is not backed by any experiment using forecast-model outputs, and some aggregate metrics in Table 2 do not support the strong wording used in Section 3.3.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3 and Eq. (1)] The paper's abstract and conclusion claim that the model 'utilizes variables forecast by these NWP and AI weather models to estimate 6-hourly SSI' and 'is able to provide stable medium-term SSI forecasts.' However, every quantitative evaluation in Section 3 runs the diagnostic model on 2018 ERA5 reanalysis fields; no experiment feeds SFNO or any other forecast model's output into the trained model. Because Eq. (1) maps the atmospheric state at time ti to SSI accumulated over [ti−Δ, ti], the forecast chain depends on f generalizing from reanalysis states to forecast states that carry model-specific biases, especially in cloud and humidity fields (q at 1000–850 hPa and tcwv). This distribution shift is unquantified. I request an experiment that injects actual SFNO (or other NWP) forecast fields for 2018 into AFNOERA5/AFNOf and evaluates against BSRN/SARAH3; if that is outside the scope of the paper, the abstract and conclusion must be revised to state that forecast-model integration is proposed but not yet evaluated.
  2. [Table 2 and Section 3.3] The claim that the fine-tuned model 'demonstrates higher accuracy compared to SARAH3' and shows 'a significant improvement on ground stations: 8.2% lower RMSE compared to AFNOERA5' is metric- and subset-dependent. The 8.2% figure corresponds to the SARAH3-station subset (RMSE 50.90→46.72 W m−2); on all stations the RMSE improvement is 4.2%, while MAE on all stations is worse for AFNOf than AFNOERA5 (26.86 vs 25.93 W m−2) and the bias is more negative (−5.35 vs 0.79 W m−2). Outside the SARAH3 domain (ROW), AFNOf has a worse MAE than AFNOERA5 (27.53 vs 25.19 W m−2). The paper should either state the claim with the exact subset and metric, or provide a multi-metric, multi-subsample analysis that accounts for these discrepancies.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.4 and Table 1] The architecture description states that the input atmospheric state has c=31 channels, but the variables listed in Table 1 sum to 24 channels (z on 7 levels, t on 8 levels including 2 m, q on 7 levels, tcwv, and surface pressure). The paper should clarify how the remaining channels are formed from the orography, coordinate embeddings, and solar zenith angle, since this is required for reproducibility.
  2. [Section 2.4] There is a typo in the fine-tuning paragraph: 'with a a cosine annealing scheduler' should read 'with a cosine annealing scheduler.'
  3. [Table 2 and Table A.1] The unit 'Wm2' should be typeset as W m−2, and the station abbreviations in Table A.1 should be separated by spaces or line breaks for readability.
  4. [Section 3.3] The paper states that only BSRN stations with less than 10% missing data are kept but does not report the number of stations in each subset (All, SARAH3, ROW). This number is needed to interpret the aggregated RMSE/MAE/bias values and to assess the robustness of the fine-tuning conclusion.
  5. [Section 3.2 and Figure 4] The percentage improvements of AFNOf over AFNOERA5 and AFNOSARAH3 are reported in the text but the underlying absolute RMSE values are not tabulated. A small table with the numerical values shown in Figure 4 would make the comparison reproducible.
  6. [Code & Data Availability] The availability section links to the datasets and to the Modulus repository but does not provide trained model weights, training scripts, or the exact preprocessing code. For a data-driven paper, one of these should be made available to support the reported numbers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: ERA5 training is openly emulation; fine-tuning gains and BSRN metrics rest on held-out external data; the forecast-input leg is an untested transfer, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The diagnostic model f is defined by Eq. (1) as a mapping from the atmospheric state at time t_i to the 6-hour accumulated SSI ending at t_i, with Eq. (2) defining that accumulation. Training minimizes the weighted L2 loss in Eq. (3) against ERA5 SSI fields (1980–2016) and, for the fine-tuned variant, against SARAH3 fields (2000–2016). The central quantitative claims are evaluated on held-out 2018 data: the SARAH3 comparison (Figure 4) and BSRN station comparison (Table 2) use external observational targets that were not used to set model constants. The ERA5 validation is explicitly an emulation check, not a prediction claim, so the agreement of AFNOERA5 with ERA5 does not reduce to construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation in the paper equates a predicted quantity to an input by definition. The self-citations are contextual: refs. [14] and [15] are prior applications of related methods, ref. [1] defines the SFNO variable list used for input selection, and ref. [2] is a checkpoint, none of which is load-bearing for the fine-tuning result. The only substantive gap is that the abstract and conclusion claim SSI forecasting from NWP/AI forecast fields, while all validation feeds ERA5 reanalysis states into the diagnostic model; the passage 'by substituting x_ti with the atmospheric state forecasted by a weather forecasting model, we can generate a global SSI forecast' asserts transferability without evaluating it. That is an omitted evaluation and a distribution-shift risk, not a circular reduction. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, forces, or mediators are introduced. The model is a supervised ML estimator.

free parameters (2)
  • Architecture hyperparameters = 12 AFNO blocks, hidden dim 256, patch 4x4, batch 128, LR 1e-3 / 5e-5, epochs 30/10
    Hand-chosen without ablation or sensitivity analysis; they affect capacity and convergence but are not fitted physical constants.
  • Input variable/level subset = z, t, q at 50, 300, 500, 700, 850, 925, 1000 hPa; t2m, sp, tcwv
    The pressure levels and variable set are selected by physical reasoning, not learned or optimized; other choices could alter performance.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ERA5 reanalysis states contain sufficient information to determine 6-hourly surface solar irradiance.
    The entire approach rests on learning SSI from the selected atmospheric variables; no radiative transfer closure is used. Invoked in Section 2.4 and Table 1.
  • ad hoc to paper The learned mapping transfers from ERA5 analysis states to NWP/AI weather model forecast states.
    The abstract claims use with NWP/AI models, but no forecast-model input experiment is presented; Section 3 validates only on ERA5 fields.
  • domain assumption SARAH3 and BSRN are accurate enough to serve as tuning targets and ground truth.
    Fine-tuning quality and BSRN verdicts assume these products are reliable; cited validation [6,20] supports this.
  • domain assumption Pixel values at BSRN station locations are comparable to point pyranometer measurements at 6-hour aggregation.
    Section 3.3 compares the model pixel to station observations; sub-grid heterogeneity can add noise, and the paper acknowledges some differences.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data-driven Surface Solar Irradiance Estimation using Neural Operators at Global Scale." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5M3JY6U

@misc{pith2026241108843,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data-driven Surface Solar Irradiance Estimation using Neural Operators at Global Scale},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5M3JY6U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08843}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate surface solar irradiance (SSI) forecasting is essential for optimizing renewable energy systems, particularly in the context of long-term energy planning on a global scale. This paper presents a pioneering approach to solar radiation forecasting that leverages recent advancements in numerical weather prediction (NWP) and data-driven machine learning weather models. These advances facilitate long, stable rollouts and enable large ensemble forecasts, enhancing the reliability of predictions. Our flexible model utilizes variables forecast by these NWP and AI weather models to estimate 6-hourly SSI at global scale. Developed using NVIDIA Modulus, our model represents the first adaptive global framework capable of providing long-term SSI forecasts. Furthermore, it can be fine-tuned using satellite data, which significantly enhances its performance in the fine-tuned regions, while maintaining accuracy elsewhere. The improved accuracy of these forecasts has substantial implications for the integration of solar energy into power grids, enabling more efficient energy management and contributing to the global transition to renewable energy sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08843 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 6-hourly averaged SSI forecasts over a 48-hour period. SFNO [1, 2] acts as prognostic model forecasting multiple weather variables at 6-hourly lead times. Our diagnostic model is then applied to retrieve the accumulated 6-hour SSI. The proposed methodology is generic and can be applied to other weather forecasting models. 1 Introduction Surface solar irradiance (SSI) estimation and forecasting plays a crucial role i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. However, with respect to the AFNO architecture presented in [25], we modify the patch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. On the left: the Pix2Pix UNet architecture with residual blocks (ResBlock) showed in blue. The encoder and decoder are composed by strided convolutions (2D Conv) and strided transposed convolutions (2D TConv). The first encodes the weather forecasted fields to the latent space while the second decodes the latent prediction into a SSI field. On the right: the AFNO architecture with AFNO blocks showed in blue. The enc… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evaluation vs. ERA5 6-hour SSI. Our model (AFNOERA5) is evaluated against ERA5 SSI product and compared against two benchmark models (Pix2Pix and MLP), likewise evaluated against the ERA5 SSI product. The validation is performed on 6-hour averaged fields of solar radia…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evaluation vs SARAH3 6-hour SSI. Three version of our AFNO-based model are validated and compared on SARAH3 6-hour averaged SSI fields at 0.25◦ resolution for 2018. AFNOERA5 is the ERA5-trained version, the second model is the same model finetuned on 17 years of SARAH3…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Data-driven solar forecasting enables near-optimal economic decisions

    physics.geo-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SunCastNet combines AI weather forecasting with reinforcement-learning battery control to turn high-resolution solar forecasts into large regret reductions and more profitable industrial solar projects.

  2. Retrieval of Surface Solar Radiation through Implicit Albedo Recovery from Temporal Context

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An attention-based model retrieves surface solar radiation from satellite image sequences and matches albedo-informed models when given about 40 hours of temporal context.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Bonev, B. et al. Spherical Fourier Neural Operators: Learning Stable Dynamics on the Sphere in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (eds Krause, A. et al.) 202 (PMLR, July 2023), 2806–2823. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v202/ bonev23a.html

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    SFNO Model Checkpoint Accessed: 2024-11-07

    NVIDIA. SFNO Model Checkpoint Accessed: 2024-11-07. 2023. https://catalog.ngc. nvidia.com/orgs/nvidia/teams/modulus/models/sfno_73ch_small

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Bamisile, O. et al. Comprehensive assessment, review, and comparison of AI models for solar irradiance prediction based on different time/estimation intervals. Scientific Reports 12, 9644 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Antonanzas, J. et al. Review of photovoltaic power forecasting. Solar Energy 136, 78–

    work page

  5. [5]

    Nguyen, T. N. & Müsgens, F. What drives the accuracy of PV output forecasts?Applied Energy 323, 119603. ISSN : 0306-2619. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0306261922009102 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Urraca, R. et al. Evaluation of global horizontal irradiance estimates from ERA5 and COSMO-REA6 reanalyses using ground and satellite-based data. Solar Energy 164, 339–

    work page

  7. [7]

    Huang, G. et al. Estimating surface solar irradiance from satellites: Past, present, and future perspectives. Remote Sensing of Environment 233, 111371 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    & Hogan, R

    Ukkonen, P. & Hogan, R. J. Twelve Times Faster yet Accurate: A New State-Of-The-Art in Radiation Schemes via Performance and Spectral Optimization. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 16, e2023MS003932 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    & Meyer, A

    Schuurman, K. & Meyer, A. Surface solar radiation: AI satellite retrieval can outperform Heliosat and generalizes well to other climate zones. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16316 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Predicting surface solar radiation using a hybrid radiative Transfer–Machine learning model

    Lu, Y .et al. Predicting surface solar radiation using a hybrid radiative Transfer–Machine learning model. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 173, 113105. ISSN : 1364-0321. https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science / article / pii / S1364032122009868 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    E., A˘gbulut, Ü., Bakır, H., Ergün, A

    Gürel, A. E., A˘gbulut, Ü., Bakır, H., Ergün, A. & Yıldız, G. A state of art review on estimation of solar radiation with various models. Heliyon 9, e13167. ISSN : 2405-8440. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844023003742 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Paletta, Q. et al. Advances in solar forecasting: Computer vision with deep learning. Advances in Applied Energy 11, 100150. ISSN : 2666-7924. https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science/article/pii/S266679242300029X (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Papachristopoulou, K. et al. Effects of clouds and aerosols on downwelling surface solar irradiance nowcasting and short-term forecasting. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques17, 1851–1877. https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/17/1851/2024/ (2024). 9

    2024

  6. [14]

    Carpentieri, A. et al. Intraday probabilistic forecasts of surface solar radiation with cloud scale-dependent autoregressive advection. Applied Energy 351, 121775. ISSN : 0306-2619. https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science / article / pii / S030626192301139X (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    & Meyer, A

    Carpentieri, A., Folini, D., Leinonen, J. & Meyer, A. Extending intraday solar forecast horizons with deep generative models. Applied Energy 377, 124186. ISSN : 0306-2619. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924015691 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Yang, D. et al. Verifying operational intra-day solar forecasts from ECMWF and NOAA. Solar Energy 236, 743–755. ISSN : 0038-092X. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0038092X22001645 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Molinaro, R. et al. EPT-1.5 Technical Report 2024. arXiv: 2410.15076 [cs.AI] . https: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.15076

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Lang, S. et al. AIFS-ECMWF’s data-driven forecasting system. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01465 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Hersbach, H. et al. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 146, 1999–2049. eprint: https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/ 10.1002/qj.3803 . https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ qj.3803 (2020)

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Pfeifroth, U. et al. Surface Radiation Data Set - Heliosat (SARAH) - Edition 3 2023. https: //wui.cmsaf.eu/safira/action/viewDoiDetails?acronym=SARAH_V003

    2023

  13. [21]

    Cano, D. et al. A method for the determination of the global solar radiation from meteorological satellite data. Solar Energy 37, 31–39. ISSN : 0038-092X. https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/0038092X86901040 (1986)

    1986

  14. [22]

    Driemel, A. et al. Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN): structure and data description (1992–2017). Earth System Science Data 10, 1491–1501. https://essd.copernicus.org/ articles/10/1491/2018/ (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Kosmopoulos, P. G.et al. Assessment of surface solar irradiance derived from real-time mod- elling techniques and verification with ground-based measurements. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques 11, 907–924. https : / / amt . copernicus . org / articles / 11 / 907 / 2018/ (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    W., Haar, T

    Reynolds, D. W., Haar, T. H. V . & Cox, S. K. The Effect of Solar Radiation Absorption in the Tropical Troposphere. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 14, 433–444. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/14/4/1520- 0450_1975_ 014_0433_teosra_2_0_co_2.xml (1975)

    1975

  17. [25]

    Pathak, J. et al. Fourcastnet: A global data-driven high-resolution weather model using adaptive fourier neural operators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.11214 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Guibas, J. et al. Adaptive fourier neural operators: Efficient token mixers for transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.13587 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Siddiqui, S. A. et al. Exploring the design space of deep-learning-based weather forecasting systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07472 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kingma, D. P. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    -Y ., Zhou, T

    Isola, P., Zhu, J. -Y ., Zhou, T. & Efros, A. A. Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (2017), 1125–1134. 10 A Supplementary Material A.1 Comparison of ERA5 and SARAH3 a...

    2017

  22. [111]

    https : / / www

    ISSN : 0038-092X. https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science / article / pii / S0038092X1630250X (2016)

    2016

  23. [354]

    https:/ /www

    ISSN : 0038-092X. https:/ /www. sciencedirect .com/science/ article/pii/ S0038092X18301920 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.