Organizations: Department of Mathematical Sciences / Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, US · Department of Mathematics / Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, US · Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, US
Short-horizon forecasts of atmospheric temperature are needed to support climate-aware digital-twin systems, but such forecasts must be produced where thermal observations are incomplete. This study evaluates a physics-informed neural network for potential-temperature forecasting, constrained by a pressure-coordinate thermodynamic advection-source equation and a diabatic-source closure fit from the preceding 12-hour period and frozen before future-time training. Using hourly ERA5 reanalysis at three pressure levels, the model is evaluated as a conditional hindcast at lead times of one, two and three hours against persistence, local-trend, and two matched neural-network baselines, one of which receives the same future meteorological forcing as the PINN, helping distinguish the physical constraint from access to future forcing. In an Oklahoma development case, mean RMSE improvement over the strongest baseline grew from 8.1% at one hour to 23.8% at three hours; under an observation-density sweep down to 5% of candidate locations, this 3-hour advantage remained 14.6--16.9%, with no evidence that lower density improves performance. Under a fixed protocol transferred to an Alabama heat event with three virtual-observation layouts, three-hour improvement ranged 19.7-24.4% with consistent origin-level wins. A parallel Montana stress test, in which fixed pressure levels intersected complex terrain, produced a three-hour degradation of roughly 17.5%, identifying a terrain-related applicability limit of the formulation. Together, these results indicate that the physics constraint's benefit grows with forecast horizon, persists under severe observation sparsity, and transfers across regions, but is bounded by the validity of a fixed vertical-coordinate representation over complex terrain, evidence relevant to physics-constrained components of climate-aware forecasting and digital-twin systems.
Figures & tables
Region / experiment
Inner evaluation domain
Forecast origins (UTC)
Temperature setting
Experimental role
Oklahoma development
33.5∘ – 37.0∘ N, 100.0∘ – 94.5∘ W
Aug. 15 12:00, 18:00; Aug. 16 12:00, 18:00
Dense
Model development
Oklahoma chronological replication
Same
Aug. 19 12:00, 18:00; Aug. 20 12:00, 18:00
Dense
Later-period replication under the fixed protocol
Oklahoma density study
Same
Same four origins
25%, 10%, 5%; dense reference
Observation-density × forecast-horizon analysis
Alabama
31.0∘ – 34.5∘ N, 88.5∘ – 85.0∘ W
Jul. 27 12:00, 18:00; Jul. 28 12:00, 18:00
10%
Fixed-protocol cross-region evaluation and layout robustness
Montana
45.0∘ – 47.5∘ N, 109.0∘ – 104.5∘ W
Jul. 25 12:00, 18:00; Jul. 26 12:00, 18:00
Nominal 10%
Terrain/applicability stress test
Table 1: Summary of the experimental design across study regions.
Experiment
Mean PINN RMSE (K)
Mean strongest- baseline RMSE (K)
Mean RMSE improvement (%)
Overall PINN win rate (%)
+3 -h PINN win rate (%)
Oklahoma development
0.526
0.636
17.3
70.8
62.5
Oklahoma chronological replication
0.641
0.781
18.0
75.0
75.0
Table 2: Oklahoma development and chronological-replication performance under dense temperature observations.
Temperature-observation coverage
+1 -h improvement (%)
+2 -h improvement (%)
+3 -h improvement (%)
Overall mean improvement (%)
Overall PINN win rate (%)
+3 -h PINN win rate (%)
Dense (100%)
8.1
14.7
23.8
18.0
75.0
75.0
25%
2.6
5.5
16.9
10.1
75.0
87.5
10%
1.8
6.3
15.1
9.3
62.5
87.5
5%
1.4
9.1
14.6
9.8
70.8
87.5
Table 3: Oklahoma PINN performance by temperature-observation coverage and forecast lead time.
Figure 1: Effect of temperature-observation coverage and forecast horizon on Oklahoma forecast performance.
Forecast lead
PINN RMSE (K)
Strongest-baseline RMSE (K)
RMSE improvement (%)
PINN win rate (%)
+1 h
0.373
0.391
4.6
37.5
+2 h
0.573
0.646
11.3
75.0
+3 h
0.691
0.860
19.7
75.0
Table 4: Alabama cross-region evaluation and robustness to sparse-observation layout.
Figure 2: Spatial comparison for a representative +3 -h Alabama forecast at 850 hPa under 10% temperature-observation coverage. The six panels show: (a) ERA5 temperature field and virtual observation locations, (b) PINN forecast, (c) persistence forecast, (d) PINN absolute error, (e) persistence absolute error, and (f) three-dimensional PINN temperature surface. Panels (a)–(c) use a common temperature scale, while panels (d) and (e) use a common absolute-error scale.
Forecast lead
Mean PINN RMSE (K)
Mean strongest- baseline RMSE (K)
RMSE improvement (%)
+1 h
3.201
2.954
−8.4
+2 h
3.363
2.951
−14.0
+3 h
3.458
2.942
−17.5
Table 5: Montana frozen stress-test performance by forecast lead.
Figure 3: Terrain applicability and forecast performance in the Montana stress test.