Tianmu-TC: Physics-constraints Generative Artificial Intelligence for Global Tropical Cyclone Forecasting
Authors: Shiqi Zhang, Pan Mu, Cheng Huang, Hanting Yan, Yuchao Zhu, Jinglin Zhang, Shengyong Chen, Shoujuan Shu, +1 more
Organizations: College of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou & 310023, China. · School of Control Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan & 250061, China. · School of Computer Science and Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin & 300384, China. · School of Earth Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou & 310058, China.
Tropical cyclones (TCs) pose severe risks from strong winds and heavy rainfall. However, forecasting their track and intensity remains challenging due to chaotic atmosphere and the rapid amplification of initial condition errors, leading to growing forecast uncertainty. While numerical weather prediction (NWP) and deep learning models have made progress, they remain computationally demanding and often fail under complex meteorological scenarios. Here, we present Tianmu-TC, a physics-constraints generative framework for global TC forecasting. Trained on Western North Pacific data, Tianmu-TC leverages physics-constraints to generate controllable outputs with reduced uncertainty thus improving forecast reliability. Experiments show Tianmu-TC outperforms deterministic and ensemble meteorological artificial intelligence models and authoritative NWP systems such as ECMWF in global ocean basins, with significantly lower computational cost. We further show Tianmu-TC performs well in challenging scenarios such as data sparsity, anomaly tracks, rapid intensification and weakening. These findings suggest physics-constraints generative AI offers a promising approach for reliable, efficient global TC forecasting.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Physics-constraints for TC forecasting. ( A ) Overall schematic: meteorological factors influencing the development of TCs. ( B ) Proposed physics-constraints govern the generation process and achieve a lower uncertainty score with the smallest prediction area. ( C ) The data composition of atmospheric environment constraint. The large-scale wind field consists of the zonal u and meridional wind v components from 200 hPa to 850 hPa. High-pressure systems are composed of the South Asian High (SAH, z200 ) and the Western Pacific Subtropical High (WPSH, z500 ), where z denotes geopotential height. ( D ) TC tilt metrics: calculated from vorticity data at three pressure levels. See details in Materials and Methods.
Figure 2: Framework of Tianmu-TC. Tianmu-TC consists of three key components: (1) Constraint Encoder for preliminary constraint encoding, (2) Cross-Modal Fusion module to establish correlations between constraints, and (3) Constraint guiding denoising module to perform the final denoising process. The yK∼y0 represents the TC prediction results under different diffusion steps k . To facilitate clear visualization, only the predicted track is displayed here, whereas wind speed and pressure predictions are simultaneously generated. From yK to y0 , the blue dashed line gradually converges from noise to near ground truth. The single-step denoising process from yk to yk−1 is implemented by the Physics-constraints Denoising Block , which operates under the guidance of physics- constraints.
Figure 3: Results under different constraints. ( A ) Generation results of Typhoon Krosa at 00:00 UTC on August 16, 2019, under five constraint settings with decreasing diffusion steps k (from 100 to 0). Shaded regions represent uncertainty. Applying all constraints ( C1 , C2 , and C3 ; rightmost column) results in the most concentrated predictions with the lowest uncertainty. ( B ) For the Typhoon Krosa at 00:00 UTC on August 16, 2019, corresponding to (A), the mean and variance of the predictions are visualized as spread distributions. Smaller variance leads to a steeper curve, indicating lower prediction uncertainty. ( C ) Average prediction errors across 146 TCs from 2017 to 2023. The rows correspond to ( a ) track, ( b ) pressure, and ( c ) wind speed.
Figure 4: Comparison of average forecast errors with large-scale meteorological models and the authoritative NWP system during the test period from 2017 to 2023. The testing regions cover six ocean basins: ( A ) Eastern North Pacific (EP), ( B ) North Atlantic (NA), ( C ) North Indian (NI), ( D ) South Indian (SI), ( E ) South Pacific (SP), and ( F ) Western North Pacific (WP). ( G ) Comparison of computational efficiency metrics with large-scale meteorological models.
Figure 5: Visualization of track predictions for representative TCs across six ocean basins. Each basin presents forecasts for a specific TC at three consecutive initialization times: ( A ) EP (Jimena), ( B ) NA (Rene), ( C ) NI (Ockhi), ( D ) SI (Enawo), ( E ) SP (Gita), and ( F ) WP (Sonca).
Category
Scenario (Unit)
Methods
Samples
Forecast Horizon
+6h
+12h
+18h
+24h
Track
Anomaly (km)
Pangu
582
44.13
55.90
72.75
104.26
Fengwu
582
44.19
49.33
65.89
95.62
ECMWF
582
40.32
50.26
61.82
78.11
Ours
582
16.90
17.28
34.74
70.38
Landfall (km)
Pangu
304
47.86
62.09
87.55
125.50
Table 1: Results on special TC scenarios on global area from 2017 to 2021. Samples is the number of cases. Lower values indicate better performance. “Anomaly” consists of circular movement, turning on the ocean, and V-shaped tracks. “ RI ” denotes Rapid Intensification , and “ RW ” denotes Rapid Weakening of TCs.
Figure 6: Visualization of complex prediction scenarios. ( A ) Track prediction, ( B ) wind speed, and ( C ) pressure. For (A), four challenging track cases are illustrated: ( Aa ) circular track, ( Ab ) post-landfall prediction, ( Ac ) turning on the ocean, and ( Ad ) V-shaped movement. ( Ba )–( Bb ): rapid intensification ; ( Bc )–( Bd ): rapid weakening . Rapid intensification is defined as a tropical cyclone’s wind speed increasing by more than 30 knots (15.43 m/s) within 24 hours, whereas rapid weakening refers to the opposite process. ( C ) displays the corresponding pressure prediction results for (B).
Model
Samples
Track Error (km)
Pressure Error (hPa)
Wind Speed Error (m/s)
Training time
Inference time
+12h
+24h
Overall
+12h
+24h
Overall
+12h
+24h
Overall
NeuralGCM
684
67.52
83.28
75.40
/
/
/
/
/
/
3 weeks
11.9 s
GenCast
684
43.25
62.00
52.63
10.71
10.75
10.73
10.10
9.93
10.02
5 days
32 s
Tianmu-TC
684
17.52
66.37
41.95
0.39
1.46
0.92
0.72
2.11
1.41
2 days
1.23 s
Table 2: Comparison with deterministic NeuralGCM and GenCast forecasts. Results are reported on test samples for the year 2020 at the overlapping forecast horizons of +12 h and +24 h. Track error, pressure error, and wind speed error are measured in km, hPa, and m/s, respectively. Lower values indicate better performance. In “Inference time”, s denotes seconds.
Task
Model
Samples
Mean Error
Std. Error
Spread
Best-of-50
+12h
+24h
Overall
+12h
+24h
Overall
+12h
+24h
Overall
+12h
+24h
Overall
Track (km)
NeuralGCM-ENS
521/505
91.75
126.87
109.04
31.88
57.18
44.33
95.02
145.47
119.85
62.36
67.16
64.72
GenCast-ENS
521/505
92.28
175.74
133.36
51.91
104.05
77.57
96.40
189.52
142.24
24.76
39.86
32.19
Tianmu-TC-ENS
521/505
28.40
109.86
68.49
8.76
34.16
21.26
22.33
85.29
53.32
10.42
40.94
25.44
Pressure (hPa)
NeuralGCM-ENS
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
GenCast-ENS
521/505
9.72
10.05
9.88
1.30
1.92
1.60
1.34
2.05
1.69
6.88
6.27
6.58
Table 3: Comparison with ensemble NeuralGCM and GenCast forecasts. Results are reported on test samples for the year 2020 at the overlapping forecast horizons of +12 h and +24 h. The overall value is computed over the combined +12 h and +24 h samples. NeuralGCM-ENS, GenCast-ENS and Tianmu-TC-ENS denote the ensemble versions of NeuralGCM, GenCast and Tianmu-TC, respectively. For a fair comparison, all ensemble-based methods are evaluated using 50 members.
Figure 7: Lifecycle visualization of multi-trend track forecasts for Typhoon ATSANI (WP, 2020). The main panel shows the rolling 12-h forecast path over the TC lifecycle, where each method is represented by the mean track of 50 ensemble members (i.e., multiple possible tracks), and the black curve denotes the best-track positions. The numbered panels show the spatial distributions of the 50 ensemble-predicted TC positions for representative cases selected from the main panel, covering early, middle, and late lifecycle stages as well as unusual looping-track predictions. In each numbered panel, circles indicate the spatial dispersion of the forecast members, and the values N , G , and T denote the corresponding dispersion radii of NeuralGCM-ENS, GenCast-ENS, and Tianmu-TC-ENS, respectively. The black star denotes the best-track position. The selected cases reveal different performance regimes, including accurate and biased situations.
Row
Real-time
Data
Track Error (km)
Pressure Error (hPa)
Wind Speed Error (m/s)
Xhis
XERA5
Xtilt
+6h
+12h
+18h
+24h
+6h
+12h
+18h
+24h
+6h
+12h
+18h
+24h
1
yes
/
/
/
114.88
228.64
331.53
428.40
2.78
4.93
6.04
6.94
1.57
2.84
3.72
4.50
2
yes
6h
/
/
57.30
104.16
146.70
191.52
2.20
3.08
3.62
4.15
1.34
1.93
2.26
2.58
3
yes
12h
/
/
34.71
57.52
83.13
116.12
1.31
1.94
1.91
2.62
0.62
1.25
1.17
1.54
4
yes
18h
/
/
26.43
39.97
61.88
93.99
1.10
2.03
1.97
2.67
0.59
1.13
1.09
1.47
5
yes
24h
/
/
20.97
30.21
46.45
77.19
0.96
1.60
1.61
2.33
0.50
0.86
0.86
1.25
Table 4: Testing results under missing input conditions. The last row corresponds to the complete model (Tianmu-TC). Xhis , XERA5 , Xtilt refer to TC historical attribute values, ERA5 data, and TC tilt values, respectively. +6h to +24h indicate prediction horizons in hours. Lower values represent better performance.
Figure 8: Analyzing the correlation between track and intensity prediction. (A) Ablation results when predictions are made individually and jointly. (B) Saliency maps of historical attribute values. The columns correspond to ( a ) track, ( b ) pressure, and ( c ) wind speed.
Prediction Horizon (hours)
Error Type
Method
+6h
+12h
+24h
+48h
+72h
Track Error (km)
CMO
32.4
52.9
75.5
132.1
201.1
ECMWF
42.3
47.0
65.8
116.8
193.6
Tianmu-TC
17.8
21.9
69.1
238.7
438.9
Pressure Error (hPa)
CMO
2.6
4.37
6.25
9.01
11.25
ECMWF
10.9
11.2
11.8
12.9
11.7
Table 5: Compare the prediction errors at a 72-hour forecast horizon with authoritative NWP methods in WP basin. The testing years are from 2017 to 2023.
Category
Scenario (Unit)
Methods
Samples
Forecast Horizon
+6h
+12h
+18h
+24h
Track
Anomaly (km)
Pangu
1103
56.25
62.96
77.58
110.94
Fengwu
1103
44.19
49.33
65.89
95.62
Ours
1103
18.08
17.72
36.93
73.57
Landfall (km)
Pangu
582
59.84
76.14
101.26
131.16
Fengwu
582
52.33
62.04
76.14
93.80
Table S1 : Extended-Sample Comparison on special TC scenarios on global area from 2017 to 2021. Samples is the number of cases. Lower values indicate better performance. “Anomaly” consists of circular movement, turning on the ocean, and V-shaped tracks. “RI” denotes Rapid Intensification , and “RW” denotes Rapid Weakening .
Figure S1 : Central Information Enhancement (CenIE) block. Considering that the center of selected ERA5 data corresponds to the location of the TC center, specifically, the longitude and latitude coordinates in the track task. Besides, pressure represents the lowest pressure near the TC center, and wind speed denotes the two-minute maximum sustained wind speed near the TC center. In other words, the predicted attributes are all the attributes in and around the TC center. Therefore, we define TC center as a highly task-relevant area. To enhance task-relevant information in the selected ERA5 data, CenIE block enhances the center point Ea,bt+i′ of original 2D data Et+i′ and Et+i=concat(Et+i′,Et+i′−Ea,bt+i′) , where C in the figure denotes channel concatenation, i∈[1,n] , the a and b denote the coordinates in the geopotential height map, H and W denote the width and height of the map, and n denotes the length of the historical data. That is, the value of each pixel point in Et+i′ is subtracted from that of the current central point Ea,bt+i′ , and concatenated with the original Et+i′ . Finally, CenIE block outputs the enhancement of central information Et+i . This data preprocessing method is very simple and does not need GPU resources.
Figure S2 : Comparison with additional operational models in the EP and NA basins. We include authoritative forecasting systems issued by the National Hurricane Center (NHC): the official forecast (OFCL), and the statistical-dynamical model combination OCD5, which merges CLP5 (track) and DSHP (intensity). Other models include EMXI (ECMWF global model from the previous cycle), HCCA (a weighted consensus of multiple dynamical and statistical models), as well as recent large models Pangu and Fengwu. Testing period: from 2017 to 2023.
Figure S3 : More comparison methods on WP.
Figure S4 : Quantitative results of uncertainty for ( a ) track, ( b ) pressure and ( c ) wind speed.
AI weather models are in the process of revolutionising weather forecasting. While these models have been shown to achieve superior performance to physics-based NWP in forecasting tropical cyclone (TC) tracks, they tend to dramatically underestimate intensity. Here we present AIFS-TC, a simple correction to the AIFS-Single model that is competitive with the operational state-of-the-art for forecasting maximum wind speed and minimum central pressure at lead times of 12 h to seven days. This performance also holds for rapid intensification events. Notably, the entire system was autonomously designed and built by a large language model (Claude Fable 5) in a few hours, directed through a small number of natural-language prompts by a single domain scientist. That the operational frontier can be reached with an open-source AI forecast model (AIFS-Single) and relatively simple, cheap post-processing is significant for TC science, and points to agentic coding as a route to rapid exploration and progress in life-saving early-warning systems in other domains.
Anna Allen, Wessel P. Bruinsma, Michael Maier-Gerber +3
University of Cambridge · 2European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
Tropical cyclones are growing more destructive in a changing climate, and efficient forecasting of their structure and track has become a necessity. Deep generative models promise an alternative to computationally expensive numerical weather prediction (NWP), yet current systems produce either satellite imagery or atmospheric fields, never both; they need many sampling steps, putting them out of reach of modest hardware; and their storm tracks come from regression heads with no physical link to the generated atmosphere. This work presents a single-pass model that jointly forecasts GRIDSAT-B1 infrared imagery and four ERA5 atmospheric fields (U-wind, V-wind, air temperature, and surface pressure) out to nine hours. A five-channel variational autoencoder compresses each 5 x 256 x 256 frame to a 4 x 64 x 64 latent, and a conditional rectified-flow UNet with a factorized temporal-attention module predicts the next three frames from three past frames, their best-track coordinates, and timestamps. The model is then reward-fine-tuned (DRaFT) against a differentiable track error derived from the predicted winds through a steering-flow calculation. On held-out 2022 storms the model reaches 16.35 dB PSNR and 0.759 SSIM, ahead of a reproduced cascaded-diffusion baseline at every lead time (+0.84 dB at +9 h) while sampling ~30x faster (56 ms vs. 1673 ms). Track error at +9 h is 62.4 km, 15% below the baseline, and a reward fine-tuning study demonstrates a further 8-11% track-error reduction across sampler budgets.
Meheru Zannat, Sk. Md. Masudul Ahsan
Department of Computer Science and Engineering Khulna University of Engineering & Technology Khulna 9203, Bangladesh
Explicit onshore tsunami inundation forecasting can improve public risk awareness, but deterministically predicted inundation boundaries under highly uncertain conditions, such as near-field tsunamis generated by megathrust earthquakes, may falsely imply safety outside the boundaries. Consequently, current warnings primarily target coastal tsunami height, not onshore inundation. Although machine learning enables instant inundation predictions, they remain deterministic, lacking uncertainty quantification. Here, we develop a probabilistic ensemble model based on a conditional diffusion model (a type of generative AI) that reconciles accuracy with calibration. Validated with the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake data, our model faithfully tracks the postearthquake uncertainty decreasing over time while accurately predicting inundation depth and extent. Our framework shows that generative AI can shift tsunami forecasting from determinism to probabilism, providing a foundation for next-generation early warning.
Yusuke Oishi, Takashi Furumura, Fumihiko Imamura
Fujitsu Research, Fujitsu Limited, Kawasaki, Japan. · Earthquake Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. · International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.