Using Machine Learning to Calibrate Storm-Scale Probabilistic Guidance of Severe Weather Hazards in the Warn-on-Forecast System
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
A primary goal of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Warn-on-Forecast (WoF) project is to provide rapidly updating probabilistic guidance to human forecasters for short-term (e.g., 0-3 h) severe weather forecasts. Maximizing the usefulness of probabilistic severe weather guidance from an ensemble of convection-allowing model forecasts requires calibration. In this study, we compare the skill of a simple method using updraft helicity against a series of machine learning (ML) algorithms for calibrating WoFS severe weather guidance. ML models are often used to calibrate severe weather guidance since they leverage multiple variables and discover useful patterns in complex datasets. indent Our dataset includes WoF System (WoFS) ensemble forecasts available every 5 minutes out to 150 min of lead time from the 2017-2019 NOAA Hazardous Weather Testbed Spring Forecasting Experiments (81 dates). Using a novel ensemble storm track identification method, we extracted three sets of predictors from the WoFS forecasts: intra-storm state variables, near-storm environment variables, and morphological attributes of the ensemble storm tracks. We then trained random forests, gradient-boosted trees, and logistic regression algorithms to predict which WoFS 30-min ensemble storm tracks will correspond to a tornado, severe hail, and/or severe wind report. For the simple method, we extracted the ensemble probability of 2-5 km updraft helicity (UH) exceeding a threshold (tuned per severe weather hazard) from each ensemble storm track. The three ML algorithms discriminated well for all three hazards and produced more reliable probabilities than the UH-based predictions. Overall, the results suggest that ML-based calibrations of dynamical ensemble output can improve short term, storm-scale severe weather probabilistic guidance
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 12 Nov 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 4; 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
6 papers.
- 2022Comparing Explanation Methods for Traditional Machine Learning Models Part 1: An Overview of Current Methods and Quantifying Their Disagreementcited by 14
- 2022A Machine Learning Tutorial for Operational Meteorology, Part I: Traditional Machine Learningcited by 6
- 2022Analysis, Characterization, Prediction and Attribution of Extreme Atmospheric Events with Machine Learning: a Reviewcited by 3
- 2023Physically Explainable Deep Learning for Convective Initiation Nowcasting Using GOES-16 Satellite Observationscited by 3
- 2022Comparing Explanation Methods for Traditional Machine Learning Models Part 2: Quantifying Model Explainability Faithfulness and Improvements with Dimensionality Reductioncited by 2
- 2026Developing Machine Learning-Based Watch-to-Warning Severe Weather Guidance from the Warn-on-Forecast Systemcited by 0
- 2026Developing Machine Learning-Based Watch-to-Warning Severe Weather Guidance from the Warn-on-Forecast System10 Mar 2026
- 2023Physically Explainable Deep Learning for Convective Initiation Nowcasting Using GOES-16 Satellite Observations24 Oct 2023
- 2022Comparing Explanation Methods for Traditional Machine Learning Models Part 2: Quantifying Model Explainability Faithfulness and Improvements with Dimensionality Reduction18 Nov 2022
- 2022Comparing Explanation Methods for Traditional Machine Learning Models Part 1: An Overview of Current Methods and Quantifying Their Disagreement16 Nov 2022
- 2022Analysis, Characterization, Prediction and Attribution of Extreme Atmospheric Events with Machine Learning: a Review3 Jun 2022
- 2022A Machine Learning Tutorial for Operational Meteorology, Part I: Traditional Machine Learning15 Apr 2022