Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

CERA: A Framework for Improved Generalization of Machine Learning Models to Changed Climates

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that CERA, an autoencoder with explicit latent-space alignment, generalizes a moist-physics parameterization to a +4 K climate without using any labels from that climate, outperforming both raw-input and hand-engineered…

desk verdict Learned latent alignment for climate-invariant parameterizations is a genuinely new idea and the offline results are convincing, but the paper's mechanism is under-specified and the hyperparameters were tuned with the warm-climate test in view. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00010 v1 pith:XPZH4L6C submitted 2025-08-15 physics.ao-ph cs.LG

Shuchang Liu , Paul A. O'Gorman This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ao-phcs.LG
keywords climate-invariantrepresentationlatentspacealignmentEarthMover'sDistancemoistphysicsparameterizationdeeplearninggeneralizationout-of-distributionrobustnessprecipitationextremesself-supervised
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 claims that a machine-learned parameterization of moist atmospheric physics can generalize to a climate 4 K warmer without ever seeing labeled training data from that climate. The trick is to make the model's internal representation, not its raw inputs, climate invariant: an autoencoder is trained on inputs from both the control and +4 K climates, and a distributional penalty pulls the two latent spaces together, while the downstream predictor is supervised only on control-climate outputs. Tested against a raw-input baseline and a hand-engineered relative-humidity-plus-buoyancy baseline, the framework (CERA) reports the highest mean $R^2$ in the warm climate (0.53 versus 0.46 and 0.26) and, unlike either baseline, tracks the enhanced frequency of extreme precipitation under warming. If this holds, it offers a route to parameterizations that do not depend on high-resolution labeled output from future climates.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a partitioned-latent autoencoder trained with a three-term loss: reconstruction on both climates, supervised prediction on control labels only, and an Earth Mover's Distance penalty between the control and +4 K latent distributions, computed per channel and vertical level as the distance between sorted samples. One of the three latent channels is deliberately excluded from alignment and prediction, giving the encoder a place to store climate-specific information that the decoder needs for reconstruction but that should not drive the predictor. Kernel-size-one convolutions transform each vertical level independently, so the climate-invariant encoding is a stack of per-level learned transformations rather than a vertically mixing feature extractor. The Earth Mover's Distance term is what forces the encoder to find structure common to both climates; the ablation shows that without it the warm-climate skill drops and is less stable across random seeds.

What would settle it

Take a held-out labeled +4 K sample, encode it with the trained CERA autoencoder, and compare for each vertical level the conditional expectation $E[Y \mid Z]$ and its spread against the control climate's at matched latent codes; a substantial divergence would show that the transfer assumption is violated. A simpler version is to train CERA exactly as described, then fine-tune only the predictor on a small labeled +4 K subset and measure the jump in warm-climate $R^2$; a large jump would mean the control-trained predictor was out of calibration in the warm climate despite aligned latent marginals.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that explicit alignment of latent codes across climates is what transfers a control-climate-trained parameterization to a +4 K climate. Without any labels from the warmer simulation, CERA encodes vertical profiles of temperature and total water in both climates with shared convolutional weights, penalizes the Earth Mover's Distance between the two latent distributions, and predicts subgrid fluxes and tendencies from the aligned subset of the code. In offline evaluation, it attains mean $R^2 = 0.75$ (control) and $0.53$ (+4 K), ahead of the physics-informed RH+B baseline (0.72 and 0.46) and the raw-input baseline (0.72 and 0.26); it also reproduces the warming-induced shift toward heavier precipitation, most clearly above 300 mm/day, while the baselines over- or underestimate across the intensity range. The authors also report that ablating the alignment loss lowers accuracy and increases seed-to-seed variance, and that the remaining weak spot is the tropical boundary layer.

Load-bearing premise

The whole transfer rests on the assumption that, once the latent code is aligned, the relationship between that code and the moisture and energy tendencies is identical in the control and +4 K climates; the Earth Mover's Distance loss aligns only the distributions of the codes, so if warming changes that relationship, the control-trained predictor will be miscalibrated even when the latent marginals match perfectly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A moist-physics parameterization can be developed for the present-day climate and then applied to a warmer world, reducing the need for high-resolution labeled simulations in the target climate.
  • Machine-learned parameterizations need not rely on manually selected climate-invariant inputs; invariance can be learned self-supervised from unlabeled inputs of the target climate.
  • Precipitation intensity distributions, including the extreme tail, can shift correctly with warming in a model trained only on control-climate labels, at least in the tested aquaplanet setup.
  • The authors argue the same alignment recipe could transfer to other mapping tasks such as statistical downscaling, though those applications are not demonstrated here.
  • The remaining limitation is that boundary-layer skill degrades under warming, so not all physical processes transfer equally well through the aligned latent space.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: A direct test of the conditional invariance assumption would sharpen the claim, since the Earth Mover's Distance loss aligns only the marginal distributions of latent codes; holding out a small labeled +4 K subset and comparing $E[Y \mid Z]$ between climates would show whether the control-trained predictor remains calibrated in the warm climate.
  • Editorial inference: The kernel-size-one, vertically local design means vertical coupling between levels is currently ignored; adding non-local vertical context in the encoder might recover some of the boundary-layer skill the paper identifies as the main weakness.
  • Editorial inference: Because the experiments use only two uniformly warmed climates, whether the learned invariance extends to non-uniform warming patterns such as polar amplification is untested; training the alignment across several climates with varied forcing patterns would reveal whether the invariance is genuinely climatic or specific to a uniform +4 K sea-surface-temperature shift.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CERA, a two-stage machine learning framework for parameterizing moist-physics processes with improved generalization to a warmer climate. An autoencoder is trained on unlabeled inputs from both control (0K) and +4K aquaplanet simulations, with an Earth Mover's Distance (EMD) loss that aligns the per-level, per-channel marginal distributions of latent codes from the two climates. A predictor MLP is then trained only on control-climate labels, using the aligned latent channels as inputs. The authors compare CERA against a raw-input baseline, a physically informed RH+B baseline following Beucler et al. (2024), and an ablation without EMD alignment (CERA-noAlign), reporting R² scores for five subgrid tendencies in both climates. The main results are that CERA achieves a mean +4K R² of 0.53 versus 0.46 for RH+B and 0.26 for Baseline, that it captures the intensity distribution of precipitation including extremes better than the baselines, and that the EMD loss improves both accuracy and seed robustness. The paper also includes a direct comparison to Beucler et al. (2024) after retraining to include radiative heating, where CERA and RH+B are comparable in the +4K climate. The central claim is that CERA improves warm-climate generalization without using any +4K labels, by learning climate-invariant representations from data rather than hand-crafted features.

Significance. If the claimed result holds, CERA is a useful contribution: it offers a data-driven alternative to manual climate-invariant feature engineering, with a clean ablation showing that latent alignment matters, results averaged over five random seeds, and a meaningful set of offline diagnostics including vertical structure and precipitation extremes. The framework is potentially transferable to other parameterized processes and downscaling. However, the central claim rests on an invariance assumption that the objective does not enforce and the paper does not test: the predictor is trained on control labels, so transfer to +4K requires that the conditional distribution of the target tendencies given the aligned latent code be the same in both climates. The EMD loss in Eq. (1) aligns only marginal distributions of the latent codes. In addition, hyperparameters were selected after initial tests on +4K generalization performance, so the reported +4K R² values are partly selected rather than purely held-out. These concerns are fixable with additional diagnostics and clearer evaluation protocols, but they currently limit the strength of the generalization claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (1)] The transfer step rests on an untested conditional invariance assumption. The EMD term in Eq. (1) penalizes the divergence between the marginal distributions of Z0 and Z+4K, computed separately for each latent channel and vertical level, but the predictor requires P(Y|Z0) = P(Y|Z+4K) to transfer control-trained labels to the warm climate. The paper never states this assumption explicitly, and the EMD objective gives no control over it: two latent spaces can have perfectly matched marginals while the input-output relationship changes with warming. The empirical +4K R² of 0.53 is suggestive but not a test of the mechanism, particularly because hyperparameters were selected using +4K generalization performance. I recommend adding an explicit statement of the assumption and a diagnostic that uses a held-out subset of +4K labels (for evaluation only) to compare the conditional mean E[Y|Z] between climates, or a probe that measures how much a small correction head trained on warm labels improves the control-trained predictor.
  2. [Supplementary Materials, Training details] The hyperparameter selection procedure uses the +4K generalization performance, which conflates model selection with evaluation. The SI states that 'after initial tests on generalization performance, hyperparameters were selected through a sweep aimed at balancing latent alignment and predictive accuracy,' and the reported +4K R² values are computed on the same +4K data used for those initial tests. This means the headline mean R² = 0.53 for CERA is a selected performance, not an independent estimate, and the comparison with the baselines may be optimistic. I recommend a nested or three-way split (control training, warm validation for model selection, and a separate warm test for final reporting), or at minimum a sensitivity analysis showing that the ranking is stable across reasonable hyperparameter choices.
  3. [Section 2.2 and Section 3.1] The exclusion of the non-aligned latent channel from the predictor compounds the conditional-invariance concern. One of the three latent channels is deliberately excluded from both the alignment and the predictor, so any climate-dependent information in that channel that is relevant to the target tendencies is unavailable to warm-climate predictions. The paper reports that this partitioning slightly improves generalization for ice-related outputs, but it does not discuss the possibility that excluding a channel removes information that is needed precisely because P(Y|Z) changes with warming. The manuscript should at least acknowledge this trade-off and, ideally, test a variant that uses all channels in the predictor or a variant that aligns the conditional distributions rather than only the marginals.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] There is a typo in the first paragraph: 'weather forcasting' should be 'weather forecasting.'
  2. [Supplementary Materials, Training details] The phrase 'with learning rates of 3 ×10−3 and and a weight decay' contains a duplicated 'and'; also the sentence 'EMD(Z0,Z +4K) decreases when Lreconstruction becomes smaller' is speculative and should be reworded or supported by an additional diagnostic.
  3. [Section 2.1 and Supplementary Materials] The approximation that the instantaneous surface precipitation rate excludes the surface ice sedimentation flux is described as 'typically small,' but this approximation is used for all precipitation diagnostics in Figures 5 and 6; it should be stated in the main text where the diagnostics are introduced, not only in the supporting information.
  4. [Figure 2] The panels in Figure 2 use different vertical axis ranges, which makes cross-panel comparison of R² values difficult; I suggest either using a common axis where possible or adding explicit axis labels that make the differing ranges immediately visible.
  5. [Open Research Section] The data and code are described as 'being prepared for public release' rather than released. For a paper whose main contribution is a method, providing the code and data at the time of review would substantially strengthen reproducibility; at minimum, the final version should contain permanent links.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: CERA's +4K skill is an out-of-sample evaluation, and the cited self-references are data provenance and baselines rather than load-bearing inputs.

full rationale

I find no circular step in CERA's derivation chain. The central claim is empirical: an autoencoder with EMD marginal alignment is trained on control-climate labels plus unlabeled +4K inputs, and the +4K tendencies are evaluated out-of-sample. Equation (1) contains no +4K label term; Lpred is computed using only control-climate labels, as stated in Section 2.2 and the Supplementary Materials. The reported +4K mean R2 = 0.53 is therefore not a fitted target. The method does rely on an unstated conditional-invariance assumption, P(Y|Z0) = P(Y|Z+4K), which marginal EMD does not enforce; however, that is a correctness and validation limitation, not a circular reduction, and the paper itself concedes in Section 4 that not all physical processes can be cast into climate-invariant forms. The references to Yuval et al. (2021), O'Gorman et al. (2021), and Beucler et al. (2024) include overlapping authors with the present paper, but they are used as data provenance and comparison baselines, not as load-bearing derivations of CERA's behavior. The hyperparameter description in the Supplementary selects lambda_EMD and lambda_pred from latent-space stability and control-climate losses, not from +4K labels, so no target leakage into model selection can be established from the text; the phrase 'after initial tests on generalization performance' is vague, but the detailed sweep criteria do not demonstrate a fit to +4K outcomes. Overall, the central claim has independent empirical ground and is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard domain-adaptation assumptions, most importantly the invariance of P(Y|Z) across climates, which is neither stated nor tested. The only tuned quantities are the loss weights and a collapse threshold, all selected with reference to +4K generalization performance. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • λEMD = 1e-4 (main setup), 1e-3 (radiative-heating version)
    Tuned as the largest value that avoided latent collapse (std < 0.1), and selected based on +4K generalization performance (SI Training details).
  • λpred = 0.01
    Selected by minimizing the unweighted combination of losses; effectively tuned on generalization performance (SI Training details).
  • latent_collapse_threshold = 0.1 (standard deviation)
    Hand-chosen criterion to define latent space collapse during hyperparameter selection (SI Training details).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The coarse-grained SAM high-resolution simulation provides accurate ground-truth subgrid tendencies.
    The entire training and evaluation uses these simulations as truth (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption The conditional distribution of target tendencies given the latent code is invariant across control and +4K climates.
    The predictor is trained only on control labels, so transfer relies on P(Y|Z) being the same in the warm climate; this is not stated or tested (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption Vertical profiles of T and qT are sufficient inputs to predict the subgrid tendencies.
    Inherited from Yuval et al. (2021) as the closure assumption for the parameterization (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption Uniform +4K SST warming is a meaningful test of climate-change generalization.
    Used as a stringent scenario; real climate change involves more complex changes (Section 1).
  • standard math The EMD between sorted samples in one dimension correctly measures distributional distance.
    Standard result from Levina and Bickel (2001), used in the implementation.
  • domain assumption The autoencoder reconstruction loss preserves the information needed for prediction in the aligned subset of the latent code.
    The predictor sees only the aligned channels; reconstruction on both climates does not guarantee task-relevant information is retained (Section 2.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CERA: A Framework for Improved Generalization of Machine Learning Models to Changed Climates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XPZH4L6C

@misc{pith2026250900010,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CERA: A Framework for Improved Generalization of Machine Learning Models to Changed Climates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XPZH4L6C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00010}
}
read the original abstract

Robust generalization under climate change remains a major challenge for machine learning applications in climate science. Most existing approaches struggle to extrapolate beyond the climate they were trained on, leading to a strong dependence on training data from model simulations of warm climates. Use of climate-invariant inputs improves generalization but requires challenging manual feature engineering. Here, we present CERA (Climate-invariant Encoding through Representation Alignment), a machine learning framework consisting of an autoencoder with explicit latent-space alignment, followed by a predictor for downstream process estimation. We test CERA on the problem of parameterizing moist-physics processes. Without training on labeled data from a +4K climate, CERA leverages labeled control-climate data and unlabeled warmer-climate inputs to improve generalization to the warmer climate, outperforming both raw-input and physically informed baselines in predicting key moisture and energy tendencies. It captures not only the vertical and meridional structures of the moisture tendencies, but also shifts in the intensity distribution of precipitation including extremes. Ablation experiments show that latent alignment improves both accuracy and the robustness across random seeds used in training. While some reduced skill remains in the boundary layer, the framework offers a data-driven alternative to manual feature engineering of climate invariant inputs. Beyond parameterizations used in hybrid ML-physics systems, the approach holds promise for other climate applications such as statistical downscaling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00010 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of CERA. The top half illustrates the autoencoder stage, where in￾puts from control (Xcold) and warm (Xwarm) climates are encoded into latent representations (Zcold and Zwarm) using shared 1D convolution layers. Reconstruction losses MSE(X, Xˆ) are applied to both climates, while an Earth Mover’s Distance loss EMD(Zcold, Zwarm) encourages alignment between their latent spaces. The bottom half depicts the p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. R2 Comparison Across Models for Outputs in Control and +4 K Cli￾mates. Blue dots indicate the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) for each method (Baseline, RH+B baseline, CERA, and CERA-noAlign) in the control climate, evaluated across five subgrid variables. Red triangles show the corresponding R 2 scores under the +4 K warming scenario. Results are displayed over five individual random seeds used in training per … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: R 2 for qT mic versus latitude and pressure across methods and climates. Shown are the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) values for predicted qT mic (moisture tendency due to microphysical conversion to precipitating water) in the control (top) and +4 K (bottom) clim…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Frequency distributions of instantaneous precipitation rates in the con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean and extreme precipitation versus latitude in control and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The Equilibrium Response of Atmospheric Machine-Learning Models to Uniform Sea Surface Temperature Warming

    physics.ao-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Under uniform +2 K SST warming, ML atmospheric emulators reproduce precipitation changes but show deficient land warming, upper-tropospheric warming, and radiative responses compared with the AM4 GCM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , Gentine, P

    Beucler2024Climate-invariantLearning APACrefauthors Beucler, T. , Gentine, P. , Yuval, J. , Gupta, A. , Peng, L. , Lin, J. O’Gorman, P A. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Climate-invariant machine learning Climate-invariant machine learning . Science Advances 10 6 eadj7250

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    , Xie, L

    Bi2022Pangu-weather:Forecast APACrefauthors Bi, K. , Xie, L. , Zhang, H. , Chen, X. , Gu, X. \ Tian, Q. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Pangu-weather: A 3d high-resolution model for fast and accurate global weather forecast Pangu-weather: A 3d high-resolution model for fast and accurate global weather forecast . arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.02556

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    , Bruinsma, W P

    Bodnar2025ASystem APACrefauthors Bodnar, C. , Bruinsma, W P. , Lucic, A. , Stanley, M. , Allen, A. , Brandstetter, J. Perdikaris, P. APACrefauthors \ 2025 . A foundation model for the Earth system A foundation model for the Earth system . Nature 641 8065 1180--1187 . APACrefURL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09005-y APACrefURL APACrefDOI doi:10.1038/s...

    doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09005-y 2025

  4. [4]

    Learning bias corrections for climate models using deep neural operators

    Bora2023LearningOperators APACrefauthors Bora, A. , Shukla, K. , Zhang, S. , Harrop, B. , Leung, R. \ Karniadakis, G E. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Learning bias corrections for climate models using deep neural operators Learning bias corrections for climate models using deep neural operators . arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03173

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    , Brajard, J

    Bracco2025MachineClimate APACrefauthors Bracco, A. , Brajard, J. , Dijkstra, H A. , Hassanzadeh, P. , Lessig, C. \ Monteleoni, C. APACrefauthors \ 2025 . Machine learning for the physics of climate Machine learning for the physics of climate . Nature Reviews Physics 7 1 6--20

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    , Beucler, T

    Brenowitz2020InterpretingConvection APACrefauthors Brenowitz, N D. , Beucler, T. , Pritchard, M. \ Bretherton, C S. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Interpreting and Stabilizing Machine-Learning Parametrizations of Convection Interpreting and Stabilizing Machine-Learning Parametrizations of Convection . Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 77 12 4357--4375 . APACre...

    work page doi:10.1175/jas-d-20-0082 2020

  7. [7]

    \ Bretherton, C S

    Brenowitz2018PrognosticParameterization APACrefauthors Brenowitz, N D. \ Bretherton, C S. APACrefauthors \ 2018 . Prognostic validation of a neural network unified physics parameterization Prognostic validation of a neural network unified physics parameterization . Geophysical Research Letters 45 12 6289--6298

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    , Henn, B

    Bretherton2022CorrectingSimulations APACrefauthors Bretherton, C S. , Henn, B. , Kwa, A. , Brenowitz, N D. , Watt‐Meyer, O. , McGibbon, J. Harris, L. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Correcting coarse‐grid weather and climate models by machine learning from global storm‐resolving simulations Correcting coarse‐grid weather and climate models by machine learning fro...

    work page 2022

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    , Henn, B

    Cachay2024ProbabilisticDYffusion APACrefauthors Cachay, S R. , Henn, B. , Watt-Meyer, O. , Bretherton, C S. \ Yu, R. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Probabilistic Emulation of a Global Climate Model with Spherical DYffusion Probabilistic Emulation of a Global Climate Model with Spheri...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    , Christensen, H

    Chantry2021OpportunitiesAI APACrefauthors Chantry, M. , Christensen, H. , Dueben, P. \ Palmer, T. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . Opportunities and challenges for machine learning in weather and climate modelling: hard, medium and soft AI Opportunities and challenges for machine learn...

    2021

  3. [11]

    \ Berner, J

    Chapman2025ImprovingCorrections APACrefauthors Chapman, W E. \ Berner, J. APACrefauthors \ 2025 3 . Improving Climate Bias and Variability via CNN-Based State-Dependent Model-Error Corrections Improving Climate Bias and Variability via CNN-Based State-Dependent Model-Error Cor...

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    , Schreck, J S

    Chapman2025CAMulator:Model APACrefauthors Chapman, W E. , Schreck, J S. , Sha, Y. , Gagne II, D J. , Kimpara, D. , Zanna, L. Berner, J. APACrefauthors \ 2025 . CAMulator: Fast Emulation of the Community Atmosphere Model CAMulator: Fast Emulation of the Community Atmosphere Mod...

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    , Brenowitz, N D

    Clark2022CorrectingSimulations APACrefauthors Clark, S K. , Brenowitz, N D. , Henn, B. , Kwa, A. , McGibbon, J. , Perkins, W A. Harris, L M. APACrefauthors \ 2022 9 . Correcting a 200 km Resolution Climate Model in Multiple Climates by Machine Learning From 25 km Resolution Si...

    2022

  6. [14]

    , Collins, W D

    Eyring2024PushingLearning APACrefauthors Eyring, V. , Collins, W D. , Gentine, P. , Barnes, E A. , Barreiro, M. , Beucler, T. Zanna, L. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Pushing the frontiers in climate modelling and analysis with machine learning Pushing the frontiers in climate modell...

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    \ Potvin, C

    Flora2025WoFSCast:Scales APACrefauthors Flora, M L. \ Potvin, C. APACrefauthors \ 2025 5 . WoFSCast: A Machine Learning Model for Predicting Thunderstorms at Watch-to-Warning Scales WoFSCast: A Machine Learning Model for Predicting Thunderstorms at Watch-to-Warning Scales . Ge...

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    , Pritchard, M

    Gentine2018CouldDeadlock APACrefauthors Gentine, P. , Pritchard, M. , Rasp, S. , Reinaudi, G. \ Yacalis, G. APACrefauthors \ 2018 . Could machine learning break the convection parameterization deadlock? Could machine learning break the convection parameterization deadlock? Geo...

    2018

  9. [17]

    , Bushuk, M

    Gregory2025AdvancingLearning APACrefauthors Gregory, W. , Bushuk, M. , Zhang, Y F. , Adcroft, A. , Zanna, L. , McHugh, C. \ Jia, L. APACrefauthors \ 2025 . Advancing global sea ice prediction capabilities using a fully-coupled climate model with integrated machine learning Adv...

    2025

  10. [18]

    , Zhang, G J

    Han2023AnIntegration APACrefauthors Han, Y. , Zhang, G J. \ Wang, Y. APACrefauthors \ 2023 10 . An Ensemble of Neural Networks for Moist Physics Processes, Its Generalizability and Stable Integration An Ensemble of Neural Networks for Moist Physics Processes, Its Generalizabil...

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    , Lagerquist, R

    Haynes2023CreatingApplications APACrefauthors Haynes, K. , Lagerquist, R. , McGraw, M. , Musgrave, K. \ Ebert-Uphoff, I. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Creating and evaluating uncertainty estimates with neural networks for environmental-science applications Creating and evaluating un...

    2023

  12. [20]

    , Nishant, N

    Hobeichi2023UsingDownscaling APACrefauthors Hobeichi, S. , Nishant, N. , Shao, Y. , Abramowitz, G. , Pitman, A. , Sherwood, S. Green, S. APACrefauthors \ 2023 3 . Using Machine Learning to Cut the Cost of Dynamical Downscaling Using Machine Learning to Cut the Cost of Dynamica...

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    , Mustafa, M

    Kashinath2021Physics-informedModelling APACrefauthors Kashinath, K. , Mustafa, M. , Albert, A. , Wu, J L. , Jiang, C. , Esmaeilzadeh, S. Singh, A. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . Physics-informed machine learning: case studies for weather and climate modelling Physics-informed machine...

    2021

  14. [22]

    \ Randall, D A

    Khairoutdinov2003CloudSensitivities APACrefauthors Khairoutdinov, M F. \ Randall, D A. APACrefauthors \ 2003 . Cloud resolving modeling of the ARM summer 1997 IOP: Model formulation, results, uncertainties, and sensitivities Cloud resolving modeling of the ARM summer 1997 IOP:...

    2003

  15. [23]

    , Yuval, J

    Kochkov2024NeuralClimate APACrefauthors Kochkov, D. , Yuval, J. , Langmore, I. , Norgaard, P. , Smith, J. , Mooers, G. Hoyer, S. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Neural general circulation models for weather and climate Neural general circulation models for weather and climate . Nature...

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    , Subramanian, S

    Kurth2023Fourcastnet:Operators APACrefauthors Kurth, T. , Subramanian, S. , Harrington, P. , Pathak, J. , Mardani, M. , Hall, D. Anandkumar, A. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Fourcastnet: Accelerating global high-resolution weather forecasting using adaptive fourier neural operators ...

    2023

  17. [25]

    , Sanchez-Gonzalez, A

    Lam2023LearningForecasting APACrefauthors Lam, R. , Sanchez-Gonzalez, A. , Willson, M. , Wirnsberger, P. , Fortunato, M. , Alet, F. Battaglia, P. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Learning skillful medium-range global weather forecasting Learning skillful medium-range global weather for...

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    \ Bickel, P

    Levina2001TheStatistics APACrefauthors Levina, E. \ Bickel, P. APACrefauthors \ 2001 . The Earth Mover's distance is the Mallows distance: some insights from statistics The Earth Mover's distance is the Mallows distance: some insights from statistics . Proceedings Eighth IEEE ...

    2001

  19. [27]

    , Gagne, D J

    McCandless2022MachineEstimates APACrefauthors McCandless, T. , Gagne, D J. , Kosovi \' c , B. , Haupt, S E. , Yang, B. , Becker, C. \ Schreck, J. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Machine learning for improving surface-layer-flux estimates Machine learning for improving surface-layer-fl...

    2022

  20. [28]

    , Lessig, C

    McNally2024DataObservations APACrefauthors McNally, A. , Lessig, C. , Lean, P. , Boucher, E. , Alexe, M. , Pinnington, E. Chrust, M. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Data driven weather forecasts trained and initialised directly from observations Data driven weather forecasts trained a...

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    , Brandstetter, J

    Nguyen2023Climax:Climate APACrefauthors Nguyen, T. , Brandstetter, J. , Kapoor, A. , Gupta, J K. \ Grover, A. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Climax: A foundation model for weather and climate Climax: A foundation model for weather and climate . arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10343

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    \ Dwyer, J G

    OGorman2018UsingEvents APACrefauthors O'Gorman, P A. \ Dwyer, J G. APACrefauthors \ 2018 . Using machine learning to parameterize moist convection: Potential for modeling of climate, climate change, and extreme events Using machine learning to parameterize moist convection: Po...

    2018

  23. [31]

    OGorman2021ResponseResolution APACrefauthors O'Gorman, P A. , Li, Z. , Boos, W R. \ Yuval, J. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . Response of extreme precipitation to uniform surface warming in quasi-global aquaplanet simulations at high resolution Response of extreme precipitation to uni...

    2021

  24. [32]

    , Adcroft, A

    Perezhogin2025GeneralizableModels APACrefauthors Perezhogin, P. , Adcroft, A. \ Zanna, L. APACrefauthors \ 2025 . Generalizable neural-network parameterization of mesoscale eddies in idealized and global ocean models Generalizable neural-network parameterization of mesoscale e...

    2025

  25. [33]

    , Sanchez-Gonzalez, A

    Price2025ProbabilisticLearning APACrefauthors Price, I. , Sanchez-Gonzalez, A. , Alet, F. , Andersson, T R. , El-Kadi, A. , Masters, D. Willson, M. APACrefauthors \ 2025 . Probabilistic weather forecasting with machine learning Probabilistic weather forecasting with machine le...

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    , Gibson, P B

    Rampal2022High-resolutionZealand APACrefauthors Rampal, N. , Gibson, P B. , Sood, A. , Stuart, S. , Fauchereau, N C. , Brandolino, C. Meyers, T. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . High-resolution downscaling with interpretable deep learning: Rainfall extremes over New Zealand High-resolu...

    2022

  27. [35]

    , Pritchard, M S

    Rasp2018DeepModels APACrefauthors Rasp, S. , Pritchard, M S. \ Gentine, P. APACrefauthors \ 2018 9 . Deep learning to represent subgrid processes in climate models Deep learning to represent subgrid processes in climate models . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ...

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    , Tomasi, C

    Rubner2000TheRetrieval APACrefauthors Rubner, Y. , Tomasi, C. \ Guibas, L J. APACrefauthors \ 2000 . The Earth Mover's Distance as a Metric for Image Retrieval The Earth Mover's Distance as a Metric for Image Retrieval . International Journal of Computer Vision 40 2 99--121 . ...

    2000 doi

  29. [37]

    a r, C. , Frei, C. , L \

    Schar1996SurrogateModels APACrefauthors Sch \" a r, C. , Frei, C. , L \" u thi, D. \ Davies, H C. APACrefauthors \ 1996 3 . Surrogate climate-change scenarios for regional climate models Surrogate climate-change scenarios for regional climate models . Geophysical Research Lett...

    1996 doi

  30. [38]

    \ Messori, G

    Scher2019GeneralizationSystems APACrefauthors Scher, S. \ Messori, G. APACrefauthors \ 2019 . Generalization properties of feed-forward neural networks trained on Lorenz systems Generalization properties of feed-forward neural networks trained on Lorenz systems . Nonlinear Pro...

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    , Bonavita, M

    Schneider2022ESA-ECMWFPrediction APACrefauthors Schneider, R. , Bonavita, M. , Geer, A. , Arcucci, R. , Dueben, P. , Vitolo, C. Mathieu, P P. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . ESA-ECMWF Report on recent progress and research directions in machine learning for Earth System observation an...

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    , Pahlavan, H A

    Sun2024DataWACCM APACrefauthors Sun, Y Q. , Pahlavan, H A. , Chattopadhyay, A. , Hassanzadeh, P. , Lubis, S W. , Alexander, M J. Guan, Y. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Data imbalance, uncertainty quantification, and transfer learning in data‐driven parameterizations: Lessons from th...

    2024

  33. [41]

    , Henn, B

    Watt-Meyer2025ACE2:Responses APACrefauthors Watt-Meyer, O. , Henn, B. , McGibbon, J. , Clark, S K. , Kwa, A. , Perkins, W A. Bretherton, C S. APACrefauthors \ 2025 . ACE2: accurately learning subseasonal to decadal atmospheric variability and forced responses ACE2: accurately ...

    2025

  34. [42]

    , Brenowitz, N D

    WattMeyer2021CorrectingSimulations APACrefauthors Watt‐Meyer, O. , Brenowitz, N D. , Clark, S K. , Henn, B. , Kwa, A. , McGibbon, J. Bretherton, C S. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . Correcting weather and climate models by machine learning nudged historical simulations Correcting weat...

    2021

  35. [43]

    , Durran, D R

    Weyn2021SubseasonalModels APACrefauthors Weyn, J A. , Durran, D R. , Caruana, R. \ Cresswell‐Clay, N. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . Sub‐seasonal forecasting with a large ensemble of deep‐learning weather prediction models Sub‐seasonal forecasting with a large ensemble of deep‐learni...

    2021

  36. [44]

    , O'Gorman, P A

    Yuval2021UsePrecision APACrefauthors Yuval, J. , O'Gorman, P A. \ Hill, C N. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . Use of neural networks for stable, accurate and physically consistent parameterization of subgrid atmospheric processes with good performance at reduced precision Use of neural...

    2021

  37. [45]

    \ O’Gorman, P A

    Yuval2020Stable3295 APACrefauthors Yuval, J. \ O’Gorman, P A. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Stable machine-learning parameterization of subgrid processes for climate modeling at a range of resolutions, Nat. Commun., 11, 3295 . Stable machine-learning parameterization of subgrid proc...

    2020

  38. [46]

    , Krishnan, D

    Zeiler2010DeconvolutionalNetworks APACrefauthors Zeiler, M D. , Krishnan, D. , Taylor, G W. \ Fergus, R. APACrefauthors \ 2010 . Deconvolutional networks Deconvolutional networks . 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition 2010 ieee compu...

    2010

  39. [47]

    , Gentine, P

    Zhao2019PhysicsconstrainedEvapotranspiration APACrefauthors Zhao, W L. , Gentine, P. , Reichstein, M. , Zhang, Y. , Zhou, S. , Wen, Y. Qiu, G Y. APACrefauthors \ 2019 . Physics‐constrained machine learning of evapotranspiration Physics‐constrained machine learning of evapotran...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.