Object-based evaluation reveals thunderstorm prediction accuracy in lightning events, highlighting limitations in radar reflectivity thresholds.
To evaluate characteristics of output values from machine learning models in bulk, an object-based technique is developed and applied to a deep learning model called ThunderCast (the Thunderstorm Nowcasting Tool). ThunderCast predicts the occurrence of midlatitude lightning-producing convection (thunderstorms) in the next 0–60 minutes from satellite observations. This paper uses the Tracking and Object-Based Analysis of Clouds (tobac) tool to identify tracks of objects comprised of ThunderCast predictions from 7 randomly selected days per month from April to September 2022. For each track, the maximum Multi-Radar Multi-Sensor (MRMS) radar reflectivity at −10°C (ThunderCast’s target) is used to categorize the track as true (≥ 30 dB z at −10°C) or false (< 30 dB z at −10°C) positive. The tracks are further classified by the presence or absence of lightning from the Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM-16) or Earth Networks Total Lightning Network (ENTLN). Of the 17,054 tracks identified, 69.4% were true positive, but 62.5% of those true positives lacked associated GLM-16 or ENTLN lightning. A clear radar reflectivity threshold separating lightning-associated tracks from non-lightning tracks was not found. This demonstrates a limitation of using ground-based radar thresholds, indicative of microphysical characteristics associated with thunderstorm electrification, as the target dataset in thunderstorm nowcasting models. Additionally, cloud-top properties from the 10.3 µ m and 1.6 µ m Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) spectral bands are consistent with cloud-top glaciation. This suggests a need for additional predictors to reduce both false positives and true positives without associated lightning in ThunderCast’s predictions. The object-based analysis technique presented here can be adapted for evaluating output from other machine learning models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ortland et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: