Precipitation nowcasting, generating future radar fields from past observations, is critical for flood warning and disaster response. It is also a demanding benchmark for spatiotemporal generative modeling, with chaotic dynamics, heavy-tailed intensities, and rare high-intensity structures that matter most. Deterministic models minimize a pixel loss and are driven toward the conditional mean, which blurs exactly those structures, while generative models that add a stochastic residual on top of a deterministic backbone inherit the same blur. We propose Physics-Guided Flow-Map Matching (PG-FMM), a conditional flow-map model that decouples predictable advection from uncertain small-scale detail. A frozen Lagrangian advection prior transports the radar field and supplies an explicit motion forecast, and a flow-map generative head, conditioned on the past frames and the prior rollout rather than summed onto it, produces sharp stochastic detail in four sampling steps. The prior serves only as guidance, so the head replaces blurred structure instead of inheriting it. Extensive experiments on four radar benchmarks show that PG-FMM outperforms state-of-the-art methods on 18 of 24 metrics, with the largest gains at heavy-rain thresholds, where the critical success index improves by up to 58.9%. The project page can be found at https://neurogica.github.io/PG-FMM.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Three families of precipitation nowcasters: (1) deterministic models blur high-intensity cells; (2) purely generative models can drift off the observed storm track; (3) our physics-guided design conditions a flow-map head on a frozen advection prior, keeping forecasts sharp and on track.
Figure 2: Overview of PG-FMM. A frozen Lagrangian advection prior gϕ produces an explicit motion forecast, and a flow-map head fθ , conditioned on the history and the prior rollout, maps noise to the future sequence in a few transport steps. Stage 1 is pre-trained and frozen, Stage 2 is trained with the flow-map objective, and PMM denotes the probability-matched mean over K samples. The prior is never added to the output.
SEVIR
MeteoNet
Model
Type
CSI-M ↑
CSI-181 ↑
CSI-219 ↑
HSS ↑
SSIM ↑
MSE ↓
CSI-M ↑
CSI-24 ↑
CSI-32 ↑
HSS ↑
SSIM ↑
MSE ↓
ConvGRU
ND
0.2903
0.0879
0.0350
0.3619
0.6100
368.34
0.3401
0.2990
0.1431
0.4667
0.7833
12.85
MAU
ND
0.3076
0.1071
0.0516
0.3863
0.6505
355.48
0.3233
0.2839
0.0997
0.4452
0.7897
12.92
SimVP
ND
0.3108
0.1106
0.0517
0.3924
0.6508
383.56
0.3351
0.3002
0.1130
0.4573
0.7804
13.45
FourCastNet
ND
0.2686
0.0717
0.0339
0.3355
0.5976
410.27
0.3027
0.2533
0.1085
0.4216
0.6450
15.05
Earthformer
ND
0.2892
0.0844
0.0245
0.3665
0.6633
360.11
0.3205
0.2884
0.1237
0.4491
0.7772
14.43
Table 1: Comparison on four radar benchmarks under the AlphaPre evaluation protocol [ 28 ] ; ours uses a 16 -member probability-matched mean. ND/D denotes models without/with an explicit dynamics module, and CSI- x is the CSI at threshold x , the dataset’s two heavy-rain levels. In each column, the best result is in bold and the second best is underlined .
Figure 3: Detection skill versus lead time on SEVIR: CSI averaged over thresholds (a) and at the heavy-rain threshold VIL =181 (b). The margin of PG-FMM over AlphaPre widens with lead time and is largest on heavy rain.
Figure 4: Qualitative forecasts on SEVIR-VIL (rows: ground truth, AlphaPre, PG-FMM; columns: +20 to +100 minutes). Top: a convective system over Nebraska (test index 1708 ). Bottom: the remnants of Hurricane Barry (15 July 2019). PG-FMM preserves the heavy-rain cores and peak intensities that AlphaPre blurs.
Prior
CSI-M ↑
CSI-181 ↑
CSI-219 ↑
HSS ↑
SSIM ↑
MSE ↓
CRPS ↓
Classical advection
0.3373
0.1490
0.0745
0.4260
0.7113
327.13
0.0308
None (pure generative)
0.3525
0.1690
0.0884
0.4466
0.6968
319.60
0.0312
Prior only (no generative head)
0.3552
0.1737
0.0859
0.4493
0.7330
334.95
–
Deterministic (AlphaPre)
0.3571
0.1782
0.0892
0.4530
0.7244
317.87
0.0299
Lagrangian physics (ours)
0.3601
0.1807
0.0907
0.4573
0.7226
315.28
0.0298
Table 2: Prior ablation on SEVIR ( 16 -member PMM, four sampling steps), rows sorted by CSI-M; the generative variants differ only in the prior content, and Prior only additionally removes the generative head; we omit its CRPS, which degenerates to the pixel MAE for a deterministic forecast and is not comparable to ensemble CRPS. In each column, the best result is in bold and the second best is underlined .
Figure 5: A representative failure case, a convective system over north Texas (test index 103 ; rows and colors as in Fig. 4 ). With growing lead time PG-FMM drops the heavy band that both the ground truth and AlphaPre retain (CSI-160 0.218 vs. 0.299 ).
Figure 6: Skill versus lead time for the prior ablation on SEVIR: CSI averaged over thresholds (a) and at the heavy-rain threshold VIL =181 (b). The margin of the physics prior emerges at long lead times and is largest on heavy rain.
Figure 7: Spread–skill diagnostic of PG-FMM on SEVIR: ensemble spread and ensemble-mean RMSE per lead time (normalized VIL units). The spread/RMSE ratio is stable at ≈0.43 , indicating a sharp but under-dispersive ensemble.
Ensemble size
CSI-M ↑
CSI-181 ↑
HSS ↑
MSE ↓
1
0.3394
0.1667
0.4335
366.80
4
0.3559
0.1816
0.4529
327.32
8
0.3595
0.1843
0.4570
319.65
16 (default)
0.3614
0.1859
0.4593
315.67
32
0.3623
0.1865
0.4603
313.64
64
0.3627
0.1867
0.4607
312.66
Table 3: Effect of ensemble size on SEVIR (four sampling steps, probability-matched mean). Gains per doubling diminish sharply; 16 members, our default, is the accuracy–compute trade-off. In each column, the best is bold , the second best underlined .
Sampling steps
CSI-M ↑
CSI-181 ↑
HSS ↑
MSE ↓
1
0.3463
0.1590
0.4361
304.50
2
0.3523
0.1698
0.4453
307.27
4 (default)
0.3614
0.1859
0.4593
315.67
8
0.3620
0.1898
0.4616
324.98
Table 4: Effect of the number of sampling steps N on SEVIR ( 16 -member probability-matched mean fixed). Detection skill saturates: N=4 retains 99.8% of the CSI-M of N=8 at half the cost per forecast, and even N=1 exceeds the strongest deterministic baseline (CSI-M 0.3259 ). In each column, the best is bold , the second best underlined .
Figure 8: Learned fields of the frozen Lagrangian prior for two test cases (rows). Columns: last observed frame, ground truth and prior rollout at +50 minutes, the learned velocity v10 (arrows, over the last frame), and the learned source s10 (diverging colors, ±0.05 of the normalized intensity). The velocity forms a coherent advective flow, and the source is small and sparse (mean ∣s∣ is 1.3% of its bound cs=0.25 ; 5.6% of pixels exceed 0.01 ), consistent with its role as a growth/decay correction. Over rain pixels the first-step velocity agrees with Farnebäck optical flow at a cosine similarity of 0.865 .
Figure 9: Probabilistic diagnostics of the 16 -member ensemble on the full SEVIR test set. (a) The rank histogram over rain pixels is U-shaped and right-heavy, i.e., the raw ensemble is under-dispersive, consistent with the limitation stated in the conclusion; the probability-matched mean compensates at the verification level. (b) CRPS grows monotonically with lead time. (c) Ensemble spread stays below the RMSE of the ensemble mean (spread/RMSE ≈0.43 ). Brier scores at VIL =16 – 219 are 0.0583 , 0.0361 , 0.0151 , 0.0058 , 0.0027 , 0.0005 .
Figure 10: Additional SEVIR-VIL cases (rows: ground truth, AlphaPre, PG-FMM ; columns: +20 to +100 minutes). Top: a success on a frame-filling system (test index 1955 ; CSI-160 0.178 vs. 0.147 ). Middle: a success (index 7243 ; 0.258 vs. 0.221 ). Bottom: a failure (index 635 ; 0.196 vs. 0.211 ), in which the observed storm dissipates by +80 minutes and AlphaPre correctly fades, whereas the generative head maintains a compact storm.
Figure 11: MeteoNet cases (rows: ground truth, the frozen advection prior, PG-FMM ; columns: +20 to +100 minutes; reflectivity in dBZ). Top and middle: successes (test indices 1138 and 962 ), where the prior smooths the embedded 32 – 40 dBZ cells away with lead time and PG-FMM restores them. Bottom: a failure (index 460 ), where the observed convection keeps regenerating heavy cells that the prior never carries and the head only partially restores.
Hyperparameter
Value
Optimization (both modules)
Optimizer
AdamW
Learning rate
10−4
Precision
bf16
Gradient clipping
0.5 (head) / 1.0 (prior)
EMA decay ρ
0.999
Table 5: Implementation details and hyperparameters, grouped by module. Values are given as SEVIR / MeteoNet where they differ by dataset; symbols are defined in Sec. 4 of the main paper.
Variant
CSI-M ↑
CSI-181 ↑
CSI-219 ↑
HSS ↑
SSIM ↑
MSE ↓
CRPS ↓
without LCC
0.3652
0.1922
0.0973
0.4646
0.7286
318.71
0.0296
with LCC
0.3614
0.1859
0.0925
0.4593
0.7291
315.67
0.0294
Table 6: Composition-consistency ablation on SEVIR (full model, full training schedule; 16 -member PMM, four sampling steps). Removing LCC slightly raises the detection metrics while degrading every fidelity metric. In each column, the best result is in bold .
Method
CSI ↑
Bias →1
POD ↑
FAR ↓
FSS ↑
Area err. ↓
AlphaPre
.157 / .071
.234 / .104
.168 / .073
.284 / .295
.517 / .258
.768 / .899
PG-FMM (single sample)
.170 / .084
.345 / .201
.196 / .093
.434 / .534
.622 / .378
.660 / .812
PG-FMM (mean of 16 )
.161 / .071
.240 / .101
.172 / .073
.285 / .283
.537 / .258
.761 / .900
PG-FMM (PMM, default)
.189 / .097
.349 / .213
.214 / .107
.387 / .498
.645 / .411
.654 / .797
Table 7: Structural verification on the full SEVIR test set ( 8,096 sequences) at the heavy-rain thresholds VIL =181 / 219 . FSS uses a 17 px neighbourhood, and the area error is the relative error of the above-threshold area. Scores accumulate contingency counts over the test set rather than averaging per-sample CSI as in Table 1 of the main paper, so the values are comparable across rows here but not with that table. In each column, the best result is in bold .
Prior \ Fusion
Conditioning (ours)
Additive residual
Lagrangian physics (ours)
.0907 / .0298
.0931 / .0297
Deterministic (AlphaPre)
.0892 / .0299
.0846 / .0306
Table 8: Fusion ablation on SEVIR. All four variants share the identical flow-map head and conditioning channels at a matched 150 k-step budget and are evaluated at the same operating point ( 16 -member PMM, four sampling steps); only the prior content (rows) and the way the prior enters the model (columns) change. Cells give CSI- 219↑ / CRPS ↓ .
Method
NFE / member
CSI-M ↑
CRPS ↓
FlowCast (reproduced)
10
.348
.038
PG-FMM
4
.378
.031
Table 9: Matched-ensemble comparison on SEVIR. Both methods use eight members aggregated by the same probability-matched mean and are scored by the same evaluator on a fixed subset of the first 512 test sequences, chosen without selection. NFE is the number of network evaluations per member.
Precipitation nowcasting aims to forecast short-term radar echo sequences for extreme weather warning, where both prediction fidelity and inference efficiency are critical for real-world deployment. However, diffusion-based models, despite their strong generative capability, suffer from slow inference due to multi-step sampling trajectories, limiting their practical usability. Conditional Flow Matching (CFM) improves efficiency via straightened trajectories, but relies on latent space compression, which inevitably discards high-frequency physical details and degrades fine-grained prediction quality. To address these limitations, we propose PixelFlowCast, a two-stage probabilistic forecasting framework that achieves both high-efficiency and high-fidelity prediction without latent compression. Specifically, in the first stage, a deterministic model first produces coarse forecasts to capture global evolution trends. In the subsequent stage, the proposed KANCondNet extracts deep spatiotemporal evolution features to provide accurate conditional guidance. Based on this, a latent-free, few-step Pixel Mean Flows (PMF) predictor employs an x-prediction mechanism to generate high-quality predictions, effectively preserving fine-grained structures while maintaining fast inference. Experiments on the publicly available SEVIR dataset demonstrate that PixelFlowCast outperforms existing mainstream methods in both prediction accuracy and inference efficiency, particularly for long sequence forecasting, highlighting its strong potential for real-world operational deployment.
Yufeng Zhu, Chunlei Shi, Yongchao Feng +1
Department of Automation, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China · State Key Laboratory of Virtual Reality Technology and Systems, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
Generative machine learning is an increasingly important complement to dynamical downscaling for producing high-resolution precipitation projections, with diffusion models currently the leading approach. Flow matching is a related generative framework that has recently achieved strong results across image, video and other domains, and shown early promise for downscaling. We train a flow matching model to map daily precipitation from 8 km to 2 km over a convective-scale domain centred on Singapore, and benchmark it against CPMGEM, a score-based diffusion model. Flow matching achieves consistently better spatial skill: higher fractions skill score at every precipitation threshold and neighbourhood scale tested, and tighter structure and amplitude components of the SAL score with comparable location skill. However, flow matching underestimates the upper tail of the precipitation distribution, resulting in a dry bias in the climatological mean. These results suggest that flow matching is a competitive generative framework for convective-scale precipitation downscaling, particularly well suited to capturing spatial structure.
Accurate precipitation nowcasting is vital for disaster mitigation, but deep learning methods face a key trade-off: regression models produce over-smoothed, spectrally decaying predictions that blur convective details and violate turbulence power laws; diffusion models generate realistic yet unanchored hallucinations lacking physical grounding. We propose Spectral-Decoupled Iterative Refinement (SDIR), a deterministic framework that reformulates nowcasting as progressive frequency-decoupled refinement. SDIR first extracts a stable low-frequency synoptic skeleton, then iteratively refines high-frequency textures under physical constraints, eliminating both blurring and hallucinations. It features a dual-path design: the Synoptic Frequency-Guided Former (SFG-Former) with Scale-Adaptive Transformers for global structure, and the Fourier Residual Refiner (FR-Refiner) with Scale-Conditioned Fourier Neural Operators for fine residuals. A Physically Consistent Power Spectral Density (PCPSD) loss with dynamic masking enforces a turbulence-consistent spectral distribution. Experiments on three benchmarks show SDIR significantly outperforms SOTA methods in spatial accuracy while achieving spectral fidelity competitive with diffusion-based methods, enabling reliable high-resolution operational nowcasting. Code link: https://github.com/RuntimeWarning/SDIR.
Yunlong Zhou, Chen Zhao, Danyang Peng +2
School of Intelligence Science and Technology, Nanjing University, Suzhou, 215163, China. · State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, China.