Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Supporting renewable energy planning and operation with data-driven high-resolution ensemble weather forecast

T0 review · 4 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 A diffusion model trained on a wind farm's high-resolution simulations, combined with coarse global forecasts by a tuned denoising step, produces accurate 1-km 15-minute ensemble forecasts at one GPU-hour per 10-day run.

desk verdict A promising generative downscaling pipeline whose headline skill claim is currently circular because the model is trained on WRF and verified against WRF. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04396 v3 pith:XYNHJGEU submitted 2025-05-07 cs.LG physics.ao-ph

Jingnan Wang , Jie Chao , Shangshang Yang , Kaijun Ren , Kefeng Deng , Xi Chen , Yaxin Liu , Hanqiuzi Wen
show 5 more authors
Ziniu Xiao Lifeng Zhang Xiaodong Wang Jiping Guan Baoxiang Pan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGphysics.ao-ph
keywords renewableenergyoperationhigh-resolutionweatherforecastinggenerativeAIensemblediffusionmodelwindpowerpredictionstatisticaldownscalingprobabilistic
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

The paper tries to make high-resolution weather forecasts for wind-farm planning and operation affordable enough to run as large ensembles. It argues that a diffusion model trained on the wind farm's own high-resolution numerical simulations learns a climatological prior—the joint distribution of plausible fine-scale weather fields—and that injecting a coarse global forecast into that prior via a tuned denoising step yields accurate 1-km, 15-minute forecasts with calibrated uncertainty. The authors verify this against station observations, turbine power output, and the regional model used for training, and report that a 100-member, 10-day forecast runs on a moderate-end GPU in under an hour. If the claim holds, it removes the main computational barrier to operational, uncertainty-aware downscaling.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a score-based diffusion model trained unconditionally on WRF simulation fields, providing an approximate sampler of the target farm's high-resolution climatology. At inference, SDEdit starts from a preliminary high-resolution field produced by a CNN regression model that maps coarse large-scale inputs to 1-km fields, adds Gaussian noise up to a tuned noise level $t_0$, and runs the reverse diffusion process; sampling several denoising trajectories generates an ensemble. The tuning of $t_0$ is what balances fidelity to the large-scale forcing against the realism of the learned prior, and the paper shows that too little noise retains regression bias while too much collapses the forecast to climatology.

What would settle it

Take the same trained system to a second wind farm or weather station with independent tall-mast and turbine measurements, run it with a true operational global forecast as coarse input instead of reanalysis, and compare ensemble CRPS and power-prediction accuracy against persistence and against WRF run from the same initial conditions; if DWRF's advantage shrinks to noise or its errors track WRF's biases, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that forecast skill at a wind farm can be separated from the expensive fluid-dynamics computation: learn the local climatological manifold once, then each forecast only needs a rough large-scale guess plus a short denoising walk onto that manifold. The paper calls the resulting system DWRF and demonstrates it on a 100 km by 100 km Gobi Desert wind farm. DWRF reproduces the training model's mean, variance, skewness, extremes, inter-variable correlations, vertical correlation structure, and power spectral slopes; in 2023 daily 15-day forecasts it attains lower CRPS than a conditional GAN and lower surface RMSE than a deterministic U-Net, and forecasts from it improve wind-power prediction accuracy, with the largest gains in extreme wind events. The same pipeline is reported to produce a 100-member, 10-day forecast at 1-km and 15-minute resolution in under one hour on a moderate-end GPU.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the 1-km WRF simulation, nudged toward reanalysis, is a faithful representation of the atmosphere at the wind farm; if that surrogate is biased, the learned prior and therefore the forecasts inherit the bias, and the reported advantage over WRF is partly circular.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Operational wind-farm forecasting can move to 1 km and 15 minutes with ensemble spread, because the compute drops from many CPU-hours to about one GPU-hour.
  • Probabilistic skill, measured by CRPS, is best for the diffusion-based system, especially for sea-level pressure and 2-meter temperature at longer lead times.
  • Wind-power prediction accuracy improves by up to 1.177% over U-Net and 8.096% over CGAN in extreme cases, which the paper translates into daily revenue gains for a wind farm.
  • Because the prior is learned self-supervised, the same diffusion model can be coupled with different coarse forecast sources at inference time without retraining.
  • Climatological statistics for wind-resource assessment can be generated by sampling the trained model, replacing many expensive WRF runs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An independent test at a second site with tall-mast and turbine observations would separate learned physics from inherited bias, since the current skill evaluation leans heavily on the same WRF model that produced the training data.
  • The same prior-plus-SDEdit recipe could plausibly extend to solar irradiance, precipitation, or air quality wherever high-resolution simulation archives exist, but the paper tests only wind and temperature fields.
  • If operational global forecast errors are larger than reanalysis errors, the verified skill reported here is likely an upper bound; testing with true operational inputs would quantify the gap.
  • The compute advantage suggests that broad-area high-resolution ensembles could become feasible by training per-region priors, at the cost of new training data and validation for each region.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DWRF, a diffusion-based downscaling framework that learns a high-resolution climatological prior from 1-km WRF simulations over a wind farm in northwestern China, then combines this prior via SDEdit with a U-Net regression model that maps coarse ERA5 fields to high-resolution fields. The authors claim that this yields 1-km, 15-minute-resolution ensemble forecasts with accuracy comparable or superior to dynamical downscaling, at a tiny fraction of the compute cost, and that the method is verified against observed meteorological records and wind turbine power outputs. The main quantitative evaluation in Sec. 3.3 reports RMSE and CRPS for daily 15-day forecasts over 2023 using the WRF simulation as reference; a single 10-day case study in Sec. 3.2 compares against station observations. The downstream application in Sec. 3.4 feeds DWRF, U-Net, and CGAN forecasts into wind power forecasting models and reports small improvements in prediction accuracy.

Significance. If the central claims were established, DWRF would be a practically important contribution to high-resolution ensemble weather forecasting for renewable energy operations: the ability to produce a 100-member, 10-day, 1-km/15-min forecast in under an hour on a single GPU, combined with plug-and-play conditioning on arbitrary coarse inputs, is genuinely attractive. The idea of learning a climatological prior from high-resolution numerical simulations and using SDEdit to reconcile it with a deterministic downscaling model is also methodologically interesting and potentially reusable. However, the significance rests on the quantitative skill claims, and those claims are not currently supported by the evaluation design.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Sec. 6.1, Sec. 6.2] The main forecast-skill evaluation is circular. Section 3.3 states that "The WRF simulation, driven by hourly ERA5 reanalysis data, served as our reference standard." Section 6.1 states that ERA5 is also "utilized as the low-resolution input for training the downscaling model," and Section 6.2 confirms that the diffusion model is trained to denoise WRF simulation outputs. Thus the reference in the headline RMSE/CRPS evaluation is the very distribution the model was trained to reproduce, and the coarse input is the same ERA5 data that forced that reference. The resulting skill scores measure how well DWRF emulates a nudged WRF downscaling of ERA5 from ERA5, not how well it forecasts the atmosphere. The only observation-based evidence, the single 10-day case study in Sec. 3.2 / Fig. 3, is not a quantitative skill assessment over many cases and cannot support the abstract's claim of verification against observed records.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Sec. 6.1, Sec. 5] No genuine lead-time forecast is tested. The coarse input in all experiments is ERA5 reanalysis at the valid time, not the output of a numerical weather prediction model at forecast lead times. The Conclusion states that DWRF works by "integrating a large-scale global weather forecasting model (Pangu)," but Pangu is never used in the experiments, and no method section describes how forecast lead times are generated from the same-time downscaling map. With reanalysis inputs, the large-scale state at the valid time is known, so the evaluation is a perfect-boundary-condition downscaling exercise, and all reported skill figures are upper bounds that would degrade with genuine forecast inputs.
  3. [Sec. 6.1 vs. Sec. 3.3] The training and evaluation periods overlap. Section 6.1 says the WRF dataset "covering the period from September 2021 to September 2023" was used to train the diffusion model, while Section 3.3 evaluates over "the entire year of 2023." No temporal split is described. The model is therefore evaluated on part of its training period, which can inflate skill scores through memorization. This is a load-bearing issue for any claim of forecasting skill, not merely a presentation detail.
  4. [Sec. 3.1] The "climatological prior" validation in Sec. 3.1 compares DWRF's unconditional generations with WRF statistics (mean, variance, skewness, correlations, power spectra). Because the diffusion model is trained on WRF output, agreement between DWRF and WRF is expected and does not provide independent evidence that the learned distribution is a faithful surrogate for the real atmosphere. The section would need to compare against observations or an independent high-resolution analysis to support the claim that the prior is physically accurate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, first paragraph] The text says "Fig. 4 presents a detailed comparison" but the figure actually referenced for the skill evaluation is Fig. 5; Fig. 4 is the temperature case study.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, first paragraph] The text refers to "Section 2.2" for the conditional sampling procedure, but no Section 2.2 exists in the manuscript; the SDEdit method is described in Sec. 6.3.
  3. [Sec. 4] The Discussion states the system yields a "150-member 10-day forecast," while the Abstract and the rest of the paper state 100-member. This numerical inconsistency should be resolved.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains a typo: "The ensembble mean" should be "The ensemble mean."
  5. [Sec. 3.4] The wind power evaluation says "The study area included 200 wind plants as reference," but it is not clear what the reference data are (observed turbine power? simulated power?) or how the power forecasting models were trained and validated. This should be described in the Methods or the Supplementary Material.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central skill evaluation compares DWRF against the same WRF/ERA5 output used as its training target, making the main verification circular.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 3.3 (Forecast skills evaluation); Sec. 6.1 (Dataset); Sec. 6.2 (Diffusion probabilistic model); Abstract]
    "The WRF simulation, driven by hourly ERA5 reanalysis data, served as our reference standard. [...] In addition to driving the WRF simulation, the ERA5 reanalysis dataset was utilized as the low-resolution input for training the downscaling model in this study. [...] The probabilistic diffusion model is composed of a series of deep neural nets trained to denoise WRF simulation outputs corrupted to a hierarchy of noise levels."

    The diffusion prior is trained by denoising WRF simulation outputs (Sec. 6.2), and the same WRF simulation driven by ERA5 is then declared the 'reference standard' for the year-long RMSE/CRPS evaluation (Sec. 3.3). Thus the 'truth' in the headline skill evaluation is drawn from the same product that generated the training labels; the reported scores measure how well DWRF reproduces its own training distribution, not skill against the observed atmosphere. The Abstract's claim of verification against observed meteorological records is supported only by a single 10-day station case study, not by the main quantitative evaluation, which is circular in this sense.

full rationale

The diffusion and SDEdit machinery itself is not circular: the score-matching objective, reverse SDE, and noise-level tuning are standard and independently meaningful. The circularity is at the evaluation level. The model is trained on WRF/ERA5 downscaling outputs, and the year-long forecast-skill benchmark uses that same WRF simulation as the reference, so the quantitative RMSE/CRPS scores reduce to an in-distribution emulation test. Independent evidence is limited to a single 10-day station-observation case study and a downstream wind-power experiment whose weather inputs inherit the same verification gap. The Conclusion's claim of integrating Pangu as the coarse forecast model has no corresponding Methods or Results experiment; this is unsupported but not circular. No load-bearing self-citation was found: the authors' prior works cited as references [35,38,39] provide background on diffusion and weather-state inference and do not carry the central verification argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method does not introduce new physical entities. It rests on two unverified surrogacy assumptions: WRF 1-km output stands in for true atmospheric states, and ERA5 reanalysis stands in for operational forecast inputs. The SDEdit noise level t0 is a fitted hyperparameter, so the 'optimal combination' in the abstract is not a parameter-free derivation.

free parameters (1)
  • SDEdit perturbation step t0 = approximately 0.1 (10% of the diffusion horizon), selected by CRPS/SSR on validation
    The 'optimal combination' of prior and conditioning depends on this hyperparameter, tuned on validation data in Sec. 6.4; the paper does not derive it from first principles.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 1-km WRF simulation with analysis nudging provides a sufficiently faithful representation of the true local weather to serve as both training target and verification reference.
    Used throughout Sec. 3.1, 3.3, 6.1; if WRF has systematic biases, DWRF inherits them and the skill scores overstate skill against nature.
  • domain assumption ERA5 reanalysis fields are representative of the coarse operational forecasts (e.g., Pangu) used at inference time.
    Sec. 6.1 uses ERA5 as the low-resolution input; Sec. 5 claims Pangu integration without methods. Reanalysis contains information unavailable in a genuine forecast.
  • domain assumption The learned climatological prior is stationary over the 2021-2023 training period and transfers to the 2023 evaluation period.
    The diffusion model is trained on a two-year WRF dataset and evaluated on 2023; no treatment of climate variability or regime shift.
  • domain assumption The reverse diffusion process in SDEdit maps the perturbed preliminary prediction to the high-resolution climatological manifold without systematically altering the large-scale forcing.
    The method assumes that noise injection and reverse sampling preserve the conditioning information; the paper states this balance is controlled by t0.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Supporting renewable energy planning and operation with data-driven high-resolution ensemble weather forecast." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XYNHJGEU

@misc{pith2026250504396,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Supporting renewable energy planning and operation with data-driven high-resolution ensemble weather forecast},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XYNHJGEU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04396}
}
abstract

The planning and operation of renewable energy, especially wind power, depend crucially on accurate, timely, and high-resolution weather information. Coarse-grid global numerical weather forecasts are typically downscaled to meet these requirements, introducing challenges of scale inconsistency, process representation error, computation cost, and entanglement of distinct uncertainty sources from chaoticity, model bias, and large-scale forcing. We address these challenges by learning the climatological distribution of a target wind farm using its high-resolution numerical weather simulations. An optimal combination of this learned high-resolution climatological prior with coarse-grid large scale forecasts yields highly accurate, fine-grained, full-variable, large ensemble of weather pattern forecasts. Using observed meteorological records and wind turbine power outputs as references, the proposed methodology verifies advantageously compared to existing numerical/statistical forecasting-downscaling pipelines, regarding either deterministic/probabilistic skills or economic gains. Moreover, a 100-member, 10-day forecast with spatial resolution of 1 km and output frequency of 15 min takes < 1 hour on a moderate-end GPU, as contrast to $\mathcal{O}(10^3)$ CPU hours for conventional numerical simulation. By drastically reducing computational costs while maintaining accuracy, our method paves the way for more efficient and reliable renewable energy planning and operation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ember, United Kingdom (2024) 23

    Wiatros-Motyka, M., Fulghum, N., Jones, D.: Global electricity review 2024. Ember, United Kingdom (2024) 23

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Applied Energy 355, 122331 (2024)

    Halloran, C., Lizana, J., Fele, F., McCulloch, M.: Data-based, high spatiotemporal resolution heat pump demand for power system planning. Applied Energy 355, 122331 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Engineering Science & Technology Journal 5(7), 2379–2401 (2024)

    Agupugo, C.P., Kehinde, H.M., Manuel, H.N.N.: Optimization of microgrid oper- ations using renewable energy sources. Engineering Science & Technology Journal 5(7), 2379–2401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Nature Reviews Electrical Engineering 1(1), 53–66 (2024)

    Xu, L., Feng, K., Lin, N., Perera, A., Poor, H.V., Xie, L., Ji, C., Sun, X.A., Guo, Q., O’Malley, M.: Resilience of renewable power systems under climate risks. Nature Reviews Electrical Engineering 1(1), 53–66 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Scientific Reports 14(1), 7254 (2024)

    Damiani, A., Ishizaki, N.N., Sasaki, H., Feron, S., Cordero, R.R.: Exploring super- resolution spatial downscaling of several meteorological variables and potential applications for photovoltaic power. Scientific Reports 14(1), 7254 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Nature Energy (2024)

    Buster, G., Benton, B.N., Glaws, A., King, R.N.: High-resolution meteorology with climate change impacts from global climate model data using generative machine learning. Nature Energy (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    : Overcoming the disconnect between energy system and climate modeling

    Craig, M.T., Wohland, J., Stoop, L.P., Kies, A., Pickering, B., Bloomfield, H.C., Browell, J., De Felice, M., Dent, C.J., Deroubaix, A., et al. : Overcoming the disconnect between energy system and climate modeling. Joule 6(7), 1405–1417 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Journal of computational physics227(7), 3641–3666 (2008)

    Laprise, R.: Regional climate modelling. Journal of computational physics227(7), 3641–3666 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 12(4), 2019–001945 (2020)

    Jerez, S., L´ opez-Romero, J.M., Turco, M., Lorente-Plazas, R., G´ omez-Navarro, J.J., Jim´ enez-Guerrero, P., Mont´ avez, J.P.: On the spin-up period in wrf simula- tions over europe: Trade-offs between length and seasonality. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 12(...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 148(745), 1623–1643 (2022)

    Short, C.J., Petch, J.: Reducing the spin-up of a regional nwp system without data assimilation. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 148(745), 1623–1643 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 113(D9) (2008)

    Lo, J.C.-F., Yang, Z.-L., Pielke Sr, R.A.: Assessment of three dynamical climate downscaling methods using the weather research and forecasting (wrf) model. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 113(D9) (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    Progress in Earth and Planetary Science 6(1), 1–17 (2019)

    Stevens, B., Satoh, M., Auger, L., Biercamp, J., Bretherton, C.S., Chen, X., D¨ uben, P., Judt, F., Khairoutdinov, M., Klocke, D.,et al.: Dyamond: the dynam- ics of the atmospheric general circulation modeled on non-hydrostatic domains. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science ...

    2019

  5. [13]

    Cambridge University Press, ??? (2007)

    Stensrud, D.J.: Parameterization Schemes: Keys to Understanding Numerical 24 Weather Prediction Models. Cambridge University Press, ??? (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Wedi, N.P.: Increasing horizontal resolution in numerical weather prediction and climate simulations: illusion or panacea? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences372(2018), 20130289 (2014)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 148(744), 1368–1388 (2022)

    Dujardin, J., Lehning, M.: Wind-topo: Downscaling near-surface wind fields to high-resolution topography in highly complex terrain with deep learning. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 148(744), 1368–1388 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Geophysical Research Letters 40(18), 4922–4926 (2013)

    Miyamoto, Y., Kajikawa, Y., Yoshida, R., Yamaura, T., Yashiro, H., Tomita, H.: Deep moist atmospheric convection in a subkilometer global simulation. Geophysical Research Letters 40(18), 4922–4926 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Proceedings of the national academy of sciences115(39), 9684–9689 (2018)

    Rasp, S., Pritchard, M.S., Gentine, P.: Deep learning to represent subgrid pro- cesses in climate models. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences115(39), 9684–9689 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Journal of computational physics 227(7), 3515–3539 (2008)

    Leutbecher, M., Palmer, T.N.: Ensemble forecasting. Journal of computational physics 227(7), 3515–3539 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 83(1), 73–84 (2002)

    Zhu, Y., Toth, Z., Wobus, R., Richardson, D., Mylne, K.: The economic value of ensemble-based weather forecasts. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 83(1), 73–84 (2002)

    2002

  12. [20]

    Current Climate Change Reports 5, 172–184 (2019)

    Satoh, M., Stevens, B., Judt, F., Khairoutdinov, M., Lin, S.-J., Putman, W.M., D¨ uben, P.: Global cloud-resolving models. Current Climate Change Reports 5, 172–184 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Nature Energy, 1–13 (2024)

    Buster, G., Benton, B.N., Glaws, A., King, R.N.: High-resolution meteorology with climate change impacts from global climate model data using generative machine learning. Nature Energy, 1–13 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 34(4), 18–42 (2017)

    Bronstein, M.M., Bruna, J., LeCun, Y., Szlam, A., Vandergheynst, P.: Geometric deep learning: going beyond euclidean data. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 34(4), 18–42 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Water Resources Research 55(3), 2301–2321 (2019)

    Pan, B., Hsu, K., AghaKouchak, A., Sorooshian, S.: Improving precipitation esti- mation using convolutional neural network. Water Resources Research 55(3), 2301–2321 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Gilpin, W.: Model scale versus domain knowledge in statistical forecasting of chaotic systems. Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043252 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.5.043252 25

    2023

  17. [25]

    Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 13(10), 2021–002509 (2021)

    Pan, B., Anderson, G.J., Goncalves, A., Lucas, D.D., Bonfils, C.J., Lee, J., Tian, Y., Ma, H.-Y.: Learning to correct climate projection biases. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 13(10), 2021–002509 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Israeli, N., Goldenfeld, N.: Computational irreducibility and the predictability of complex physical systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 074105 (2004) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.074105

    2004 doi

  19. [27]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 6840–6851 (2020)

    Ho, J., Jain, A., Abbeel, P.: Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 6840–6851 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456 (2020)

    Song, Y., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Kingma, D.P., Kumar, A., Ermon, S., Poole, B.: Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.08005 (2021)

    Song, Y., Shen, L., Xing, L., Ermon, S.: Solving inverse problems in medical imaging with score-based generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.08005 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Feng, B.T., Smith, J., Rubinstein, M., Chang, H., Bouman, K.L., Freeman, W.T.: Score-based diffusion models as principled priors for inverse imaging. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 10520–10531 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    In: 2023 59th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), pp

    Bouman, C.A., Buzzard, G.T.: Generative plug and play: Posterior sampling for inverse problems. In: 2023 59th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), pp. 1–7 (2023). IEEE

    2023

  24. [32]

    GAMM-Mitteilungen, 202470004 (2024)

    Habring, A., Holler, M.: Neural-network-based regularization methods for inverse problems in imaging. GAMM-Mitteilungen, 202470004 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Physical Review Fluids 6(3), 034402 (2021)

    Page, J., Brenner, M.P., Kerswell, R.R.: Revealing the state space of turbulence using machine learning. Physical Review Fluids 6(3), 034402 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    In: 2013 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing, pp

    Venkatakrishnan, S.V., Bouman, C.A., Wohlberg, B.: Plug-and-play priors for model based reconstruction. In: 2013 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing, pp. 945–948 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/GlobalSIP. 2013.6737048

    2013

  27. [35]

    Authorea Preprints (2023)

    Pan, B., Wang, L.-Y., Zhang, F., Duan, Q., Li, X., Pan, X., Chen, X., Ling, F., Wang, S., Pan, M., et al.: Probabilistic diffusion model for stochastic parameterization–a case example of numerical precipitation estimation. Authorea Preprints (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    : A description of the advanced research wrf version 3

    Skamarock, W.C., Klemp, J.B., Dudhia, J., Gill, D.O., Barker, D.M., Duda, M.G., Huang, X.-Y., Wang, W., Powers, J.G., et al. : A description of the advanced research wrf version 3. NCAR technical note 475(125), 10–5065 (2008) 26

    2008

  29. [37]

    Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 146(730), 1999–2049 (2020)

    Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Hor´ anyi, A., Mu˜ noz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., et al.: The era5 global reanal- ysis. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 146(730), 1999–2049 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Machine Learning and Computation 2(1), 2024–000260 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JH000260

    Chao, J., Pan, B., Chen, Q., Yang, S., Wang, J., Nai, C., Zheng, Y., Li, X., Yuan, H., Chen, X., Lu, B., Xiao, Z.: Learning to infer weather states using partial observations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Machine Learning and Computation 2(1), 2024–000260 (2025) https://do...

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03038 (2025)

    Yang, S., Nai, C., Liu, X., Li, W., Chao, J., Wang, J., Wang, L., Li, X., Chen, X., Lu, B., Xiao, Z., Boers, N., Yuan, H., Pan, B.: Generative assimilation and prediction for weather and climate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03038 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Applied Energy304, 117766 (2021)

    Wang, Y., Zou, R., Liu, F., Zhang, L., Liu, Q.: A review of wind speed and wind power forecasting with deep neural networks. Applied Energy304, 117766 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 98(8), 1717–1737 (2017)

    Powers, J.G., Klemp, J.B., Skamarock, W.C., Davis, C.A., Dudhia, J., Gill, D.O., Coen, J.L., Gochis, D.J., Ahmadov, R., Peckham, S.E., et al.: The weather research and forecasting model: Overview, system efforts, and future directions. Bulletin of the American Meteorological S...

    2017

  34. [42]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073 (2021)

    Meng, C., He, Y., Song, Y., Song, J., Wu, J., Zhu, J.-Y., Ermon, S.: Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    In: Medical Image Computing and Computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Part III 18, pp

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-net: Convolutional networks for biomed- ical image segmentation. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Part III 18, p...

    2015

  36. [44]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014) 27

    Kingma, D.P., Ba, J.: Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014) 27

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

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