MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413132334 · doi:10.5194/ecss2025-319

Machine Learning-based Global Lightning Prediction from Convective Parameters

2025· preprint· en· W4413132334 on OpenAlexaff
Dominique Brunet, Mateusz Taszarek, Junjun Su, John Hanesiak

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of WaterlooEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvective available potential energyLightning (connector)LatitudeEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyConvectionClimatologyThunderTropicsAtmospheric sciencesGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forecasting lightning from environmental parameters is well established for mid-latitude regions over land. A combination of lifted index (LI), convective available potential energy (CAPE), convective inhibition (CIN) and relative humidity in the mid-troposphere are known to be good predictors of lightning occurrence. However, forecasting lightning globally with these parameters is less skillful, particularly in the tropics and ocean surface. Using the XGBoost machine learning method, we implemented a global lightning forecast from a selection of environmental parameters derived from ERA5 and thundeR package. The method is trained efficiently on several millions of pairs between global lightning observations and hundreds of convective parameters. In a first experiment, called BigXGB, we trained models over the entire globe using all parameters. For a second experiment, called RegionalizedXGB, we trained four different models for : land mid-latitude (LM), ocean mid-latitude (OM), land tropics (LT) and ocean tropics (OT). Finally, in a third experiment we incrementally dropped the least important feature in term of information gain until only one feature remained. When trained on years 2019-2022, BigXGB achieved a ROC-AUC score of 0.94 for entire domain (LM: 0.97, LT: 0.92, OM: 0.98, OT: 0.95) on the 2023 test year, with a special CIN formulation (MU5_CIN_4km), a special LI formulation (MU5_LI_eff), total column cloud ice water (tciw), and total column liquid supercooled water (tcslw), being the four most important features. RegionalizedXGB obtained similar scores to BigXGB when using the same set of features, but with the most important features varying by region. The most important features for LM and OM were related to LI, CIN and CAPE while for LT and OT the most skillful predictors were more diversified. Incrementally dropping features showed that only 40-50 features are necessary to obtain top performance, with significant performance declines below 15 features. Many top convective parameters are variants of different parcel types (most-unstable, mixed-layer, etc.), indicating that a variety of flavours of the same convective parameters help to increase predictive accuracy. A calibrated probabilistic lightning occurrence forecast was then obtained by isotonic regression between raw uncalibrated predictions and frequency of observations. This new global lightning prediction machine learning-based model opens the door to design global lightning climatology for the past 75 years and for implementing accurate lightning diagnostics in operational global numerical weather prediction.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→