HURRI-GAN: A Novel Approach for Hurricane Bias-Correction Beyond Gauge Stations using Generative Adversarial Networks
Authors: Noujoud Nadera, Hadi Majed, Stefanos Giaremis, Rola El Osta, Clint Dawson, Carola Kaiser, Hartmut Kaiser
Organizations: Center of Computation and Technology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 70803 LA, US · Saint-Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut, 1104, Lebanon · Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki , 54124, Greece · Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 57001, Greece · Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin 78712, TX, USA · Department of Computer Science, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 70803 LA, US
The coastal regions of the eastern and southern United States are impacted by severe storm events, leading to significant loss of life and properties. Accurately forecasting storm surge and wind impacts from hurricanes is essential for mitigating some of the impacts, e.g., timely preparation of evacuations and other countermeasures. Physical simulation models like the ADCIRC hydrodynamics model, which run on high-performance computing resources, are sophisticated tools that produce increasingly accurate forecasts as the resolution of the computational meshes improves. However, a major drawback of these models is the significant time required to generate results at very high resolutions, which may not meet the near real-time demands of emergency responders. The presented work introduces HURRI-GAN, a novel AI-driven approach that augments the results produced by physical simulation models using time series generative adversarial networks (TimeGAN) to compensate for systemic errors of the physical model, thus reducing the necessary mesh size and runtime without loss in forecasting accuracy. We present first results in extrapolating model bias corrections for the spatial regions beyond the positions of the water level gauge stations. The presented results show that our methodology can accurately generate bias corrections at target locations spatially beyond gauge stations locations. The model's performance, as indicated by low root mean squared error (RMSE) values, highlights its capability to generate accurate extrapolated data. Applying the corrections generated by HURRI-GAN on the ADCIRC modeled water levels resulted in improving the overall prediction on the majority of the testing gauge stations.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the methodology framework: (A) Data Pre-processing phase includes offset extraction using Eq. 2.1 , data cleaning, and normalization. (B) Modeling phase involves the structure of the TimeGAN components and model evaluation using regression metrics. (C) Output phase includes the final application of the pre-trained model for bias extrapolation. The generated offsets are then used to correct the forecasted data using Eq. 2.2 .
Hurricane
Category
No. of stations
No. of hourly offsets
Ian (2022)
H5
250
26250
Harvey (2017)
H4
247
25935
Ida (2021)
H4
264
18216
Idalia (2023)
H4
304
31920
Matthew (2016)
H4
236
24780
Hermine (2016)
H1
259
27195
Table 1: Hurricanes considered in this study, their category based on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale [ 46 ] , the number of station and the total amount of hourly offset data in each.
Figure 2: Station clustering for Hurricane Harvey (2017). This map illustrates the clustering of stations based on their coordinates. A total of 24 clusters were identified, with each color representing a different cluster.
Embedder, Recovery, Generator
Layers
No. of Neurons
Activation
Output Shape
GRU
256
–
5*256
GRU
256
–
5*256
GRU
256
–
5*256
GRU
256
–
5*256
GRU
256
–
5*256
Table 2: Schematic overview of the structure of the HURRI-GAN model (GRU: Gate Recurring Unit, Bi-GRU: Bidirectional Gated Recurrent Unit).
Hurricane
MSE
RMSE
MAE
Ian (2022)
0.129
0.359
0.241
Harvey (2017)
0.121
0.347
0.214
Ida (2021)
0.116
0.34
0.197
Idalia (2023)
0.124
0.352
0.22
Matthew (2016)
0.066
0.257
0.169
Hermine (2016)
0.085
0.292
0.177
Table 3: Metrics in feet of the real vs ML-predicted offsets generated via our previous LSTM-based model [ 30 ] for each of the considered hurricanes.
Error Metric
RMSE
Parameters
No. of Layers
No. of neurons
No. of Epochs
(ft.)
[4, 5]
[128, 256]
[2000, 3000, 4000]
Ian(2022)
Min
0.654
5
256
4000
Max
0.724
4
128
4000
Mean - Std
0.669
5
256
3000
Mean + Std
0.707
4
256
2000
Table 4: Hyperparameter tuning results for the HURRI-GAN model. The table presents the RMSE values (in feet) along with the optimal hyperparameters for each hurricane, including the number of network layers, number of neurons, and number of epochs. The values for each of the aforementioned parameters considered in this analysis are listed in brackets. The number of layers is analyzed for Generator, Embedder and Recovery. The supervisor is one layer less than the other components, while the discriminator architecture always consists of two layers.
Figure 3: RMSE values for the testing stations across different hurricanes. The map for each hurricane shows the locations of the testing stations along with their corresponding RMSE values (in feet), indicated by the color gradient. The considered hurricanes are Harvey (2017), Hermine (2016), Ian (2022), Ida (2021), Idalia (2023), and Matthew (2016) and the considered agencies are NOAA, USACE, USGS, TCOON, and PRSN. The hurricane paths are outlined in red.
Figure 4: RMSE distribution of the extrapolated offsets with the HURRI-GAN model in the testing stations by hurricane and agency. The considered hurricanes are Harvey (2017), Hermine (2016), Ian (2022), Ida (2021), Idalia (2023), and Matthew (2016) and the considered agencies are NOAA, USACE, USGS, TCOON, and PRSN.
Figure 5: Comparison of observed ( blue ), modeled ( orange ) and HURRI-GAN-corrected modeled ( green ) for: (a) Hermine (2016, category H1), (b) Harvey (2017, category H4), and (c) Ian (2022, category H5). The left side displays the location of two testing gauge stations (marked by colored disks) and the hurricane path (in red); while the right side shows the evaluation of the regression performance for these gauge stations. Evaluation statistics in each plot represent the performance of regression between modeled and observed water levels (without AI) and HURRI-GAN bias corrected and observed water levels (with AI).
Figure 6: Computational time (in seconds) required for the HURRI-GAN model to sequentially extrapolate bias corrections (i.e., inference time), as a function of the total amount of corrections.
Center for Computation and Technology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 70803, LA, US. · Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 54124, Greece. · Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, 78712, TX, US.