pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25937 · v1 · pith:4BCVMU5Tnew · submitted 2026-06-24 · ⚛️ physics.ao-ph

Event-Aware Loss Design for Forecasting of Convective Precipitation and Lightning

ChangJae Lee , Heecheol Yang , Byeonggwon Kim This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 19:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.ao-ph
keywords convective precipitationlightning forecastingevent-aware lossdeep learning post-processingextreme weather predictionmulti-task learningloss weighting
0
0 comments X

The pith

A lightning-derived spatial weight map multiplied into the MSE loss improves deep learning forecasts of intense convective rain and lightning.

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

The paper proposes an event-aware training approach for a multi-task Patch-cGAN model that jointly predicts precipitation amount, rainfall probability, and lightning occurrence. By deriving a spatial weight map from observed lightning strikes and element-wise multiplying it into the MSE loss term, the method forces the model to focus training effort on convective regions where rare high-intensity events occur. This addresses the tendency of standard losses to produce under-prediction of extremes. If effective, the result is better skill at high rainfall thresholds and improved lightning detection without altering the underlying network architecture. The approach is tested over the Korean Peninsula in summer 2025 against both AI baselines and conventional numerical weather prediction outputs.

Core claim

The central claim is that a lightning-informed loss-weighting strategy, which element-wisely multiplies the MSE component by a spatial weight map derived from observed lightning strikes, guides the shared-backbone Patch-cGAN to prioritize accuracy in convective regions and thereby yields superior forecasts of extreme precipitation and lightning occurrence compared with standard loss functions and conventional methods.

What carries the argument

The lightning-informed loss-weighting strategy, which creates a spatial weight map from observed lightning strikes and multiplies it element-wise into the MSE loss to emphasize convective areas during training.

If this is right

  • The framework outperforms standard AI benchmarks and conventional NWP models at intense rainfall thresholds such as 40 mm/6 h.
  • Lightning occurrence predictions exceed the skill of conventional lightning parameterization and instability-index-based methods.
  • Integrating physical event indicators into the loss formulation guides the model to learn meteorological signatures of deep convection.
  • The multi-task setup with shared backbone enables joint improvement across precipitation amount, probability, and lightning without separate models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same weighting idea could be applied to other rare-event targets by substituting different physical indicators for lightning strikes.
  • Loss redesign of this type might serve as a lightweight complement to more complex architectural changes in operational forecasting systems.
  • The method raises the question of whether similar event-aware weighting would transfer to other geographic domains or seasons with different convective regimes.

Load-bearing premise

That a spatial weight map derived solely from observed lightning strikes can be multiplied element-wise into the MSE loss to force the model to prioritize convective regions without causing overfitting or degrading performance on non-convective areas.

What would settle it

Train identical models with and without the lightning-derived weighting on the same data and check whether the weighted version fails to show higher skill scores at the 40 mm/6 h rainfall threshold or lower lightning prediction skill than the unweighted version.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25937 by Byeonggwon Kim, ChangJae Lee, Heecheol Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Architecture of the proposed model. Each box represents a featur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Left) Scatter plot comparing radar-estimated precipitation with observed rainfall from rain gauges, and (Right) comparison between ERA5-predicted precipitation fields and observed rainfall. Six-hour accumulated rainfall data from June to August 2024 is used. The comparison is based on the nearest-point method. c. Lightning observation: Data for target (labeling) and loss weight To incorporate lightning in… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example of the lightning-informed weight map The rainfall occurrence (ℒ𝑜𝑐𝑐 ) and lightning occurrence (ℒ𝑙𝑔𝑡 ) tasks are formulated as binary classification problems. Both adopt a Binary Cross-Entropy (BCE) loss and are also multiplied element-wisely by the lightning informed weight map, 𝑊. ℒ𝑜𝑐𝑐 = ℒ𝐵𝐶𝐸_𝑜𝑐𝑐 ⨀ 𝑊, (5) ℒ𝑙𝑔𝑡 = ℒ𝐵𝐶𝐸_𝑙𝑔𝑡 ⨀ 𝑊, (6) where ℒ𝐵𝐶𝐸 indicates the BCE loss for each task. g. Training setu… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Case study of a convective event at 09 UTC on 28 May 2025 (9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Case study of a convective event at 06 UTC on 21 July 2025 (6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Case study of a convective event at 06 UTC on 22 July 2025 (6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Case study of an extreme event at 06 UTC on 17 July 2025 (6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Case study of an extreme event at 06 UTC on 19 July 2025 (6-h lead time). (Left) Observed radar-estimated precipitation and lightning strike locations; (Middle) the proposed EA-GAN model prediction, showing 3-h accumulated precipitation and forecasted lightning probability; and precipitation forecast from the Base-GAN model (without weighted loss) (Right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Accurate forecasting of high-impact weather, specifically extreme precipitation and lightning, remains a significant challenge in numerical weather prediction (NWP) due to the complexity of atmospheric microphysics. While deep-learning models have shown promise in large-scale forecasting, they often suffer from systematic under-prediction of rare, high-intensity events and localized convective showers when optimized with conventional loss functions like Mean Squared Error (MSE). This study proposes an Event-Aware multi-task deep-learning post-processing framework designed to improve the representation of convective processes by leveraging lightning observations. The model jointly predicts precipitation amount, rainfall probability, and lightning occurrence using a shared-backbone Patch-cGAN (Conditional Generative Adversarial Network) architecture. To address the rare event problem, we introduce a lightning-informed loss-weighting strategy that element-wisely multiplies the MSE component by a spatial weight map derived from observed lightning strikes, forcing the model to prioritize accuracy in convective regions during training. Evaluations conducted over the Korean Peninsula during the 2025 Summer demonstrate that our framework outperforms standard AI benchmarks and conventional NWP models, particularly at intense rainfall thresholds (40 mm/6 h). Furthermore, the model exhibits superior skill in predicting lightning compared to conventional lightning parameterization and instability-index-based methods. These results indicate that integrating physical event indicators into the loss formulation effectively guides models to learn the meteorological signatures of deep convection, offering a pathway toward more reliable extreme weather forecasting.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces an Event-Aware multi-task Patch-cGAN post-processing framework that jointly predicts precipitation amount, rainfall probability, and lightning occurrence. It proposes a lightning-informed loss-weighting strategy that element-wise multiplies a spatial weight map (derived from observed lightning strikes) into the MSE loss term to prioritize convective regions. The central claim is that this framework outperforms standard AI benchmarks and conventional NWP models at intense rainfall thresholds (40 mm/6 h) and shows superior lightning prediction skill over parameterization and instability-index methods, based on evaluations over the Korean Peninsula in summer 2025.

Significance. If the performance gains can be isolated to the proposed loss design and supported by quantitative metrics with statistical controls, the work would demonstrate a concrete way to embed physical event indicators (lightning strikes) directly into DL training objectives for better representation of rare convective extremes. This could be relevant for operational post-processing pipelines where conventional losses under-predict high-impact events.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and Evaluation section: The central performance claims (outperformance at 40 mm/6 h and superior lightning skill) are stated without any quantitative scores, error bars, baseline definitions, or statistical significance tests. This absence makes the claims unverifiable and prevents assessment of whether the reported deltas are practically meaningful.
  2. [Method and Evaluation] The manuscript attributes superior skill at intense rainfall and lightning to the lightning-informed loss-weighting strategy, yet provides no ablation that holds the Patch-cGAN backbone, multi-task heads, and training data fixed while comparing the weighted MSE against uniform MSE (or alternative weightings). Without this isolation, the performance delta cannot be attributed to the proposed loss design rather than the architecture or joint prediction setup.
  3. [Loss formulation] The spatial weight map is constructed from observed lightning strikes and multiplied element-wise into the MSE loss. No analysis is supplied on potential overfitting to convective regions, degradation on non-convective areas, or sensitivity of results to the exact construction of the weight map (e.g., temporal aggregation or normalization choices).
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'standard AI benchmarks' and 'conventional NWP models' without naming the specific models or providing references to their implementations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which highlight important aspects of clarity, attribution, and robustness. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that strengthen the manuscript without altering its core contributions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and Evaluation section: The central performance claims (outperformance at 40 mm/6 h and superior lightning skill) are stated without any quantitative scores, error bars, baseline definitions, or statistical significance tests. This absence makes the claims unverifiable and prevents assessment of whether the reported deltas are practically meaningful.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of specific quantitative metrics in the abstract and evaluation section limits verifiability. In the revised manuscript we will insert the key scores (e.g., CSI, POD, and FAR at the 40 mm/6 h threshold), standard-error bars from ensemble runs, explicit baseline definitions (standard Patch-cGAN and NWP), and results of paired statistical tests. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method and Evaluation] The manuscript attributes superior skill at intense rainfall and lightning to the lightning-informed loss-weighting strategy, yet provides no ablation that holds the Patch-cGAN backbone, multi-task heads, and training data fixed while comparing the weighted MSE against uniform MSE (or alternative weightings). Without this isolation, the performance delta cannot be attributed to the proposed loss design rather than the architecture or joint prediction setup.

    Authors: The referee is correct that an ablation isolating the loss-weighting is required. We will add a controlled ablation experiment that keeps the Patch-cGAN architecture, multi-task heads, and training data identical while replacing the lightning-informed weighting with uniform MSE; the resulting skill differences will be reported to support attribution to the proposed loss design. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Loss formulation] The spatial weight map is constructed from observed lightning strikes and multiplied element-wise into the MSE loss. No analysis is supplied on potential overfitting to convective regions, degradation on non-convective areas, or sensitivity of results to the exact construction of the weight map (e.g., temporal aggregation or normalization choices).

    Authors: We acknowledge the lack of supporting analysis on the weight map. The revision will include (i) separate skill scores for convective versus non-convective grid cells to check for degradation outside weighted regions and (ii) sensitivity experiments that vary the temporal aggregation window and normalization of the lightning-derived weights, with results presented in a new supplementary figure. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper proposes an empirical loss-weighting method (lightning-strike spatial map multiplied element-wise into MSE) inside a Patch-cGAN multi-task model and reports performance gains from direct evaluation against external benchmarks on 2025 Korean Peninsula data. No equations, derivations, or self-citations reduce any claimed result to a fitted quantity defined by the same inputs; the weighting map is constructed from independent observations, and superiority at 40 mm/6 h thresholds is presented as an outcome of training and testing rather than a definitional or self-referential reduction. The central claims rest on external comparisons, satisfying the criteria for a self-contained, non-circular derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the loss-weighting map is treated as directly derived from observations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5784 in / 1150 out tokens · 20468 ms · 2026-06-25T19:32:25.394036+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Betz, H. D., K. Schmidt, P. Laroche, P. Blanchet, W. P. Oettinger, E. Defer, Z. Dziewit, and J. Konarski, 2009: LINET—An international lightning detection network in Europe. Atmos. Res., 91, 564–573, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2008.06.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2008.06.012 2009

  2. [2]

    Bright, D. R., M. S. Wandishin, R. E. Jewell, and S. J. Weiss, 2004: A physically based parameter for lightning prediction and its calibration in ensemble forecasts. Preprints, 22nd Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Hyannis, MA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 4.3. [Available online at http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/84173.pdf.]

    2004

  3. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Cui, Y., M. Jia, T.-Y. Lin, Y. Song, and S. Belongie, 2019: Class-Balanced Loss Based on Effective Number of Samples. 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 9260–9269, https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2019.00949

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr.2019.00949 2019

  4. [4]

    Deierling, W., and W. A. Petersen, 2008: Total lightning activity as an indicator of updraft characteristics. J. Geophys. Res.:Atmos., 113, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009598

    work page doi:10.1029/2007jd009598 2008

  5. [5]

    Farr, T. G., P. A. Rosen, E. Caro, R. Crippen, R. Duren, S. Hensley, M. Kobrick, M. Paller, E. Rodriguez, L. Roth, D. Seal, S. Shaffer, J. Shimada, J. Umland, M. Werner, M. Oskin, D. Burbank, and D. Alsdorf, 2007: The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. Rev. Geophys., 45, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005RG000183

    work page doi:10.1029/2005rg000183 2007

  6. [6]

    Communications of the ACM63(11), 139–144 (2020),https://doi.org/10.1145/3422622

    Goodfellow, I., J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio, 2020: Generative adversarial networks. Commun. ACM, 63, 139–144, https://doi.org/10.1145/3422622. 34 This Work has been submitted to Artificial Intelligence for the Earth Systems. Copyright in this Work may be transferred without further notice

    work page doi:10.1145/3422622 2020

  7. [7]

    Atmospheric Research , author =

    Schultz, M. Bateman, E. McCaul, and G. Stano, 2013: The GOES-R Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM). Atmos. Res., 125–126, 34–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.01.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.01.006 2013

  8. [8]

    Laser Scintillation Measurements of the Temperature Spectrum in the Atmospheric Surface Layer

    Hamill, T. M., 1999: Hypothesis tests for evaluating numerical precipitation forecasts. Wea. Forecasting, 14, 155–167, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520- 0434(1999)014<0155:HTFENP>2.0.CO;2

    work page doi:10.1175/1520- 1999

  9. [9]

    Harris, L., A. T. T. McRae, M. Chantry, P. D. Dueben, and T. N. Palmer, 2022: A Generative Deep Learning Approach to Stochastic Downscaling of Precipitation Forecasts. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 14, e2022MS003120, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS003120

    work page doi:10.1029/2022ms003120 2022

  10. [10]

    Keller Jordan, Yuchen Jin, Vlado Boza, You Jiacheng, Franz Cesista, Laker Newhouse, and Jeremy Bernstein

    Peubey, R. Radu, and D. Schepers, 2020: The ERA5 global reanalysis. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803

    work page doi:10.1002/qj.3803 2020

  11. [11]

    Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models

    Ho, J., A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, 2020: Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’20, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Curran Associates Inc., https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.11239

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.11239 2020

  12. [12]

    Isola, P., J.-Y. Zhu, T. Zhou, and A. A. Efros, 2017: Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks. 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 5967-5976, https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2017.632

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.632 2017

  13. [13]

    Learning skillful medium-range global weather forecasting , volume =

    Pritzel, S. Mohamed, and P. Battaglia, 2023: GraphCast: Learning skillful medium-range global weather forecasting. Science, 382, 1416–1421, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi2336

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adi2336 2023

  14. [14]

    Alexe, M

    Lang, S., M. Alexe, M. Chantry, J. Dramsch, F. Pinault, B. Raoult, M. C. A. Clare, C. Lessig, M. M.-Gerber, L. Magnusson, Z. B. Bouallègue, A. P. Nemesio, P. D. Dueben, A. Brown, F. Pappenberger, and F. Rabier, 2024: AIFS -- ECMWF’s data-driven forecasting system. arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.01465. 35 This Work has been submitted to Artific...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.01465 2024

  15. [15]

    Yang, and B

    Lee, C., H. Yang, and B. Kim, 2025: Improving a post-processing model for QPF with a deep-learning approach: Learning a precipitation physics from the high-resolution real world observation. arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.03842

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03842 2025

  16. [16]

    Lopez, P., 2016: A Lightning Parameterization for the ECMWF Integrated Forecasting System. Mon. Wea. Rev., 144, 3057–3075, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0026.1

    work page doi:10.1175/mwr-d-16-0026.1 2016

  17. [17]

    Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization

    Loshchilov, I., and F. Hutter, 2017: Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization. International Conference on Learning Representations, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1711.05101

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.05101 2017

  18. [18]

    Ma, Z., C. Zhao, J. Gong, J. Zhang, Z. Li, J. Sun, Y. Liu, J. Chen, and Q. Jiang, 2021: Spin- up characteristics with three types of initial fields and the restart effects on forecast accuracy in the GRAPES global forecast system. Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 205–221, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-205-2021

    work page doi:10.5194/gmd-14-205-2021 2021

  19. [19]

    McGovern, A

    McClung, B., A. McGovern, A. J. Hill, D. Schvartzman, and M. Stock, 2026: BoltCast: Medium-Range Lightning Prediction with Neural and Long Short-Term Memory Networks. Artif. Intell. Earth Syst., 5, 250044, https://doi.org/10.1175/AIES-D-25- 0044.1

    work page doi:10.1175/aies-d-25- 2026

  20. [20]

    Sandgathe, and E

    Marzban, C., S. Sandgathe, and E. Kalnay, 2006: MOS, perfect prog, and reanalysis. Mon. Wea. Rev., 134, 657–663, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3088.1

    work page doi:10.1175/mwr3088.1 2006

  21. [21]

    URL https://egusphere.copernicus

    Magnusson, G. Mertes, F. Pinault, B. Raoult, P. d. Rosnay, R. Forbes, and M. Chantry, 2025: An update to ECMWF's machine-learned weather forecast model AIFS, EGUsphere [preprint], 2025, 1–23, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4716

    work page doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-4716 2025

  22. [22]

    Kim, and M.-K

    Oh, Y.-A., H.-L. Kim, and M.-K. Suk, 2020: Clutter elimination algorithm for non- precipitation echo of radar data considering meteorological and observational properties in polarimetric measurements. Remote Sens., 12, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12223790

    work page doi:10.3390/rs12223790 2020

  23. [23]

    Rasp, S., P. D. Dueben, S. Scher, J. A. Weyn, S. Mouatadid, and N. Thuerey, 2020: WeatherBench: A benchmark data set for data-driven weather forecasting. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 12, e2020MS002203, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002203. 36 This Work has been submitted to Artificial Intelligence for the Earth Systems. Copyright in this Work may be transf...

    work page doi:10.1029/2020ms002203 2020

  24. [24]

    Bromberg, J. Sisk, L. Barrington, A. Bell, and F. Sha, 2023: WeatherBench 2: A benchmark for the next generation of data-driven global weather models. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 16, e2023MS004019, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023MS004019

    work page doi:10.1029/2023ms004019 2023

  25. [25]

    J., 2009: Visualizing Multiple Measures of Forecast Quality

    Roebber, P. J., 2009: Visualizing Multiple Measures of Forecast Quality. Wea. Forecasting, 24, 601–608, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008WAF2222159.1

    work page doi:10.1175/2008waf2222159.1 2009

  26. [26]

    Challenges in Survey Re- search

    Ronneberger, O., P. Fischer, and T. Brox, 2015: U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015, N. Navab, J. Hornegger, W.M. Wells, and A.F. Frangi, Eds., Cham, Springer International Publishing, 234–241, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-24574-4_28

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3- 2015

  27. [27]

    J., 2007: Parameterization Schemes: Keys to Understanding Numerical Weather Prediction Models

    Stensrud, D. J., 2007: Parameterization Schemes: Keys to Understanding Numerical Weather Prediction Models. Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812590

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511812590 2007

  28. [28]

    McGovern, A

    Vicens-Miquel, M., A. McGovern, A. J. Hill, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, C. Guilloteau, and S. S. P. Shen, 2025: A Diffusion-Based Framework for High-Resolution Precipitation Forecasting over CONUS. arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.09059

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.09059 2025

  29. [29]

    S., 1995: Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences: An Introduction

    Wilks, D. S., 1995: Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences: An Introduction. Academic Press

    1995

  30. [30]

    Zhou, K. H., J. S. Sun, Y. G. Zheng, and Y. T. Zhang, 2022: Quantitative precipitation forecast experiment based on basic NWP variables using deep learning. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 39, 1472–1486, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-021-1207-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s00376-021-1207-7 2022