physics.ao-phApr 9, 2026

CERBERUS: A Three-Headed Decoder for Vertical Cloud Profiles

Authors: Emily K. deJong, Nipun Gunawardena, Kevin Smalley, Hassan Beydoun, Peter Caldwell

Organizations: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550 USA

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Atmospheric clouds exhibit complex three-dimensional structure and microphysical details that are poorly constrained by the predominantly two-dimensional satellite observations available at global scales. This mismatch complicates data-driven learning and evaluation of cloud processes in weather and climate models, contributing to ongoing uncertainty in atmospheric physics. We introduce CERBERUS, a probabilistic inference framework for generating vertical radar reflectivity profiles from geostationary satellite brightness temperatures, near-surface meteorological variables, and temporal context. CERBERUS employs a three-headed encoder-decoder architecture to predict a zero-inflated (ZI) vertically-resolved distribution of radar reflectivity. Trained and evaluated using ground-based Ka-band radar observations at the ARM Southern Great Plains site, CERBERUS recovers coherent structures across cloud regimes, generalizes to withheld test periods, and provides uncertainty estimates that reflect physical ambiguity, particularly in multilayer and dynamically complex clouds. These results demonstrate the value of distribution-based learning targets for bridging observational scales, introducing a path toward model-relevant synthetic observations of clouds.

Figures & tables

Figure 1: Illustration of the CERBERUS three-headed architecture and neural network operations. Bold text indicates hyperparameters that were optimized.
Figure 2: Statistics of per-sample RMSE (dBZ) for each cloud regime (see Table A.1 ) over the validation set: median (orange), interquartile-range ( IQRIQR ; box), Q1/Q3±1.5IQRQ_{1}/Q_{3}\pm 1.5IQR (whiskers), and outliers (circles). Regime abbreviations defined in Table A.1 .
Figure 3: Test data and predicted reflectivity mean and uncertainty as a function of altitude, ranked according to quantile using altitude-scale energy (analogous to RMSE; see section A.2 ).
Figure 4: Illustration of the time-evolving reflectivity on Jan 29, 2025 (test set): true KAZR data (far left); and CERBERUS model mean and uncertainty (panels 2-3).
Appendix figures & tables10 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Figure A.1: Clear-sky vs cloud detection from GOES and KAZR at the ARM SGP site in 2022, aggregated across altitudes. Only the ”True Positive” data are included in the training and validation datasets.
Figure A.2: Distribution of aggregated target reflectivities from the training and validation KAZR data, aggregated across altitude (blue, orange) and timestamps (all). Blue includes all training/validation data with NaN-reflectivities filled with the -60dBZ detection threshold; orange indicates the PDF with these non-cloudy ( ≤−60\leq-60 dBZ) data removed; and green indicates the PDF of all reflectivities at 10km altitude aggregated across training/validation.
Figure A.3: Continuously ranked probability score (or MAE, for deterministic case) for the ZIB CERBERUS model and the non-ZI beta and deterministic baselines. CRPS is computed independently at each altitude for a given reflectivity measurement-prediction pair, and we report the mean CRPS across the training, validation, and testing datasets, respectively.
Figure A.4: Correlation coefficient R2R^{2} (left), RMSE (middle), and scaled Energy (RMSE) for the ZIB model and baselines. The first two metrics are reported for training, validation, and testing data splits. The Energy / RMSE is reported only for the validation dataset; Energy is scaled by the vector size ( ×1/128\times 1/\sqrt{128} ) to make it directly comparable to the RMSE that is reported for the deterministic model.
Figure A.5: Training and validation loss for the presented ZIB configuration of CERBERUS.
Figure A.6: (a) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the classification head π\pi of CERBERUS evaluated on validation data; (b) parity between the true reflectivity values and the mean of the ZIB prediction, aggregated across altitudes and timestamps in the training and validation sets, respectively.
Cloud RegimeSatMAE RMSE in dBZCERBERUS RMSE / Energy in dBZ
(Abbreviation)(SEVIRI prevalence)(CERBERUS prevalence)
Cumulus (Cu)7.0 (0.8%)3.4 / 2.9 (7.8%)
Stratocumulus (Sc)7.5 (1.4%)4.7 / 3.9 (4.1%)
Stratus (St)4.8 (3.0%)6.2 / 5.1 (0.1%)
Altocumulus (AC)8.4 (0.6%)5.6 / 4.7 (9.6%)
Altostratus (AS)9.8 (0.4%)8.1 / 6.5 (10.1%)
Appendix
Table A.1: RMSE (mean across validation set samples), scaled Energy (for CEBERUS), and frequency of various cloud regimes, including results from CERBERUS at the SGP and results reported in Girtsou et al. (2025) for the SatMAE model over the MSG/SEVIRI satellite range. Clear-sky scenes are excluded from this analysis. Overall RMSE is reported across cloud regimes according to raw data weighting and according to SEVIRI cloud regime weighting. These data correspond to Figure 2 .
Figure A.7: Permutation feature importance with the original model loss (negative log likelihood) plotted as a red-dashed line. Features are plotting in order of least important/smallest change to loss, to most important, and are colored according to field type (GOES) or scalar type (meteorology/reanalysis).
Figure A.8: As in Figure 4 , for February 11, 2025 (test set).
Figure A.9: As in Figure 4 , for February 12, 2025 (test set).
More in this topic

Remote Sensing

Remote sensing uses satellite, aerial, and ground-based observations to measure and map Earth and other planetary surfaces.

See all 528 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList

  1. C3DIR: A Deep Learning 3-Dimensional Cloud Property Retrieval Scheme for Passive Satellite Imagers

    Jul 18, 2026Charles H. White, Yoo-Jeong Noh, John M. Haynes +1Remote Sensing

    Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. · Electrical and Computer Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

  2. Cross-Modal Hierarchical Fusion for from Multi-Sensor Ground Observation

    May 31, 2026Xinze ZhangImage ReconstructionRemote Sensing

    University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90007, USA

  3. Tropospheric temperature and humidity profile retrieval from Meteosat Flexible Combined Imager based on deep learning

    Aug 26, 2026Alejandro Salgueiro, Johannes Rausch, Julie Thérèse Villinger +1Remote Sensing

    Department of Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands · School of Engineering and Computer Science, Bern University of Applied Sciences, 2502 Biel/Bienne, Switzerland · Meteomatics AG