MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411930246 · doi:10.30574/wjarr.2025.26.3.2504

An individual motion driven CNN-Based AI method for precipitation forecasting Using RADAR Image Sequence

2025· article· en· W4411930246 on OpenAlexaff
Kavitha Soppari, Sree Janavi T S, Vaibhav Varshith Kommaraju, Sahith Arisha

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadarSequence (biology)PrecipitationArtificial intelligenceMotion (physics)Computer scienceImage (mathematics)Radar imagingComputer visionMeteorologyPattern recognition (psychology)GeographyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precipitation forecasting, especially with high spatial resolution and accurate intensity estimation, remains a critical challenge in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Existing AI-based forecasting models often struggle with key limitations, including mismatched precipitation motion patterns, blurred precipitation field generation, and inaccurate intensity predictions. These issues largely arise from conventional models simulating average motion and neglecting individual motion—which refers to the unique speed, trajectory, and direction of a single precipitation event. To address these limitations, we propose an Individual Motion Driven AI (IMD-AI) method based on a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN). This approach incorporates motion alignment and pattern grouping techniques to correct mismatches in individual motion estimation, thereby enabling more accurate and intact regional precipitation forecasting. Our CNN architecture is designed to extract spatial features from RADAR image sequences and map them directly to real-world parameters such as precipitation intensity, humidity, wind speed, and atmospheric pressure. Furthermore, to enhance precision and sharpness, we integrate strategies like patch embedding, schedule sampling, and adversarial training under the SPA framework. These additions mitigate the tendency of AI models to filter out high-frequency details, improving the model’s ability to preserve fine-scale patterns in precipitation fields. The final system is deployed through a web-based application, allowing users to upload RADAR images and instantly receive multiple weather parameter predictions with high reliability and accuracy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.218
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Advanced Research and ReviewsSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207