Digital Typhoon Dataset V3: Benchmarking for Multi-spectral Extension and Analyzing Systematic Bias in Intensity Regression
Authors: Asanobu Kitamoto, Victor Le Louarn, Noelia Falczuk, Ngoc Anh Tong, Anja Veleva
Organizations: National Institute of Informatics, Japan · Typhoon Science and Technology Research Center, Yokohama National University, Japan · University of Artois, France · University of Buenos Aires, Argentina · Hanoi University of Science and Technology, Vietnam · RWTH Aachen University, Germany
This paper presents the Digital Typhoon Dataset V3, a new version of the longest typhoon satellite image dataset spanning nearly 50 years, designed to benchmark machine learning models on long-term spatio-temporal data. The latest addition to Dataset V3 is multispectral satellite data, enabling multi-channel models. We investigate data-splitting strategies and present benchmarking results for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Experimental results show that, under the current dataset construction and experimental setting, multi-channel inputs do not clearly outperform single-channel inputs for pressure regression. Among the evaluated model architectures, image types, and spectral channels, ResNet-18, full-resolution images, and Channel 1 generally provide the best single-channel performance for pressure regression. Performance also differs between the WP and AU datasets by regression target, with lower RMSE on WP for pressure regression and on AU for wind regression. These results highlight the importance of considering dataset-specific and task-specific characteristics when interpreting benchmark performance. Additionally, we analyzed systematic bias in intensity regression, which leads to underestimation of intensity for strong typhoons. We tested imbalance-aware weighting strategies, including inverse-density weighting inspired by BalancedMSE, and showed that these approaches are not sufficient to remove the bias. The dataset is publicly available at http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/dataset/ and https://github.com/kitamoto-lab/digital-typhoon/.
Figures & tables
Feature
WP dataset
AU dataset
Temporal coverage
1978-2025
1979-2025
Spatial coverage
100E to 180E in the Northern Hemisphere
90E to 160E in the Southern Hemisphere
Season
January to December
July (the previous year) to June
Best track
Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA)
Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), Australia
Table 1: Characteristics of the WP and AU datasets.
Ch.
WP TCs
WP images
AU TCs
AU images
1
1,169
202,986
511
76,211
2
744
142,583
339
58,865
3
744
142,591
339
58,842
4
502
96,611
223
40,238
Table 2: Number of TCs and Images for the WP and AU datasets for V3-2025.R1.
Ch.
Type
Himawari-1/2/3/4
Himawari-5
GOES-9
Himawari-6/7
Himawari-8/9
1
Infrared
10.5-12.5
10.5-11.5 (11.0)
10.2-11.2 (10.7)
10.3-11.3 (10.8)
11.2±0.2
2
Infrared
-
11.5-12.5 (12.0)
11.5-12.4 (11.95)
11.5-12.5 (12.0)
12.35±0.3
3
Water Vapor
-
-
6.5-7.0 (6.75)
6.5-7.0 (6.75)
6.25±0.37
4
Near Infrared
-
-
-
3.5-4.0 (3.75)
3.85±0.22
Table 3: Channel numbers assigned in the dataset and the duration of each channel across the Himawari satellite series.
Figure 1: Overview of the data-processing pipeline.
Ch.
Total images
Train images
Evaluation images (%)
1
202,986
192,956
10,030 ( 4.94% )
2
142,583
132,555
10,028 ( 7.03% )
3
142,591
132,554
10,037 ( 7.04% )
4
96,611
86,551
10,060 ( 10.41% )
Table 4: SS-L2 split (2024–2025) for the WP dataset (V3-2025.R1).
Ch.
Total images
Train images
Evaluation images (%)
1
76,042
70,274
5,768 ( 7.58% )
2
58,865
53,097
5,768 ( 9.80% )
3
58,842
53,074
5,768 ( 9.80% )
4
40,238
34,501
5,737 ( 14.26% )
Table 5: SS-L2 split (2024–2025) for the filtered AU dataset (V3-2025.R1).
Figure 2: Comparison of the convergence behavior of SGD and Adam on WP-1. Curves show the average validation RMSE on the held-out 2024–2025 evaluation set over 5 independent runs, with shaded regions indicating one standard deviation.
Table 6: Experimental settings for benchmarking single-channel models.
Ch.
Model
Full
Resized
Cropped
1
ResNet-18
6.5618 (±0.06)
6.9591 (±0.09)
6.9054 (±0.05)
1
ResNet-50
7.3367 (±1.13)
7.0446 (±0.22)
8.0222 (±2.53)
2
ResNet-18
6.7844 (±0.09)
7.2420 (±0.06)
7.0621 (±0.09)
2
ResNet-50
8.1232 (±1.29)
8.0211 (±0.43)
7.0262 (±0.26)
3
ResNet-18
6.9385 (±0.05)
7.4771 (±0.15)
7.3650 (±0.10)
3
ResNet-50
7.1517 (±0.24)
7.8674 (±0.21)
7.3509 (±0.19)
Table 7: RMSE (hPa) for the pressure regression task for the WP dataset for four channels and three image types.
Ch.
Model
Full
Resized
Cropped
1
ResNet-18
7.2015 (±0.12)
7.6933 (±0.15)
7.3887 (±0.31)
1
ResNet-50
7.3342 (±0.27)
8.2380 (±0.35)
7.5673 (±0.39)
2
ResNet-18
7.2708 (±0.29)
7.8543 (±0.51)
7.2427 (±0.12)
2
ResNet-50
8.5820 (±0.70)
8.1601 (±0.42)
8.2518 (±0.68)
3
ResNet-18
8.5809 (±1.36)
7.9710 (±0.27)
8.7664 (±1.56)
3
ResNet-50
9.5891 (±1.46)
9.0027 (±0.71)
8.4390 (±0.63)
Table 8: The RMSE (hPa) of the pressure regression task for the AU dataset for four channels and three image types.
Ch.
Model
Full
Resized
Cropped
1
ResNet-18
15.7493 (±1.09)
16.9485 (±0.41)
16.1151 (±0.27)
1
ResNet-50
15.9613 (±0.32)
15.9931 (±0.06)
15.8842 (±0.87)
2
ResNet-18
15.6748 (±0.80)
17.0907 (±0.46)
16.0942 (±0.28)
2
ResNet-50
15.9355 (±0.33)
17.1484 (±1.00)
16.1344 (±0.18)
3
ResNet-18
16.0743 (±0.67)
17.4122 (±0.66)
16.3196 (±0.15)
3
ResNet-50
16.1426 (±0.40)
16.8639 (±0.24)
16.4675 (±0.60)
Table 9: RMSE (kt) for the wind regression task for the WP dataset for four channels and three image types.
Ch.
Model
Full
Resized
Cropped
1
ResNet-18
11.4344 (±0.13)
11.6104 (±0.17)
11.5828 (±0.24)
1
ResNet-50
10.7545 (±0.17)
11.9051 (±0.12)
11.0413 (±0.86)
2
ResNet-18
13.2135 (±0.33)
13.4230 (±0.18)
12.6630 (±0.19)
2
ResNet-50
13.6150 (±0.42)
13.7778 (±0.54)
13.7715 (±0.63)
3
ResNet-18
12.9419 (±0.54)
13.2351 (±0.74)
12.7642 (±0.44)
3
ResNet-50
12.5016 (±0.31)
13.1745 (±0.52)
13.1644 (±0.50)
Table 10: RMSE (kt) for the wind regression task for the AU dataset for four channels and three image types.
Input channels
RMSE (hPa)
Single-channel dataset
Channel 1
6.9270 (±0.12)
6.5618 (±0.06)
Channel 2
6.9605 (±0.07)
6.7844 (±0.09)
Channel 3
7.3958 (±0.58)
6.9385 (±0.05)
Channel 4
7.3973 (±0.17)
7.3386 (±0.08)
Channel 1 + 2
6.9265 (±0.11)
-
Channel 1 + 3
7.1512 (±0.24)
-
Table 11: Results of the pressure regression task for the WP dataset, comparing single-channel and multi-channel inputs. Results from the single-channel dataset with the same configuration are taken from Table 7 .
Input channels
RMSE (hPa)
Single-channel dataset
Channel 1
8.2839 (±0.33)
7.2015 (±0.12)
Channel 2
8.2370 (±0.62)
7.2708 (±0.29)
Channel 3
8.4316 (±0.60)
8.5809 (±1.36)
Channel 4
9.7118 (±0.27)
9.7814 (±0.31)
Channel 1 + 2
8.4443 (±0.10)
-
Channel 1 + 3
8.4714 (±0.42)
-
Table 12: Results of the pressure regression task for the AU dataset, comparing single-channel and multi-channel inputs. Results from the single-channel dataset with the same configuration are taken from Table 8 .
Figure 3: Systematic bias (Prediction - True) across seasonal splits for the pressure regression task (WP-1 dataset, ResNet-18, Channel 1, Full images). Gray curves represent individual splits (each corresponding to a consecutive-year pair from 1978–1979 to 2024–2025), while the blue curve shows the mean bias across all 47 overlapping temporal splits. The shaded area represents ±1 standard deviation.
Figure 4: Trade-off between bias reduction for strong typhoons and global RMSE for different weighting schemes for the WP-1 dataset. Results are averaged over five independent training runs using the same fixed training protocol. The red dashed line indicates zero error.
Figure 5: Mean prediction error (Pred - True) for the WP-1 dataset using inverse-density weighting (global RMSE = 8.42). Results are averaged over five independent training runs using the same fixed training protocol. The red dashed line indicates zero error.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Ch.
WP TCs
WP images
AU TCs
AU images
1
1,169
202,986
511
76,188
2
744
142,583
339
58,842
3
744
142,591
339
58,842
4
502
96,611
223
40,238
Appendix
Table 13: Number of TCs and images for the WP and AU datasets for V3-2025.R2. The only differences from Table 2 (V3-2025.R1) are the AU images in Channels 1 and 2, which are 23 fewer because of the removed GOES-9 images (Section 2.5 ); the number of TCs is unchanged.
Evaluation RMSE
Training RMSE
Dataset
Corrupted
Release
Last 10
Last 5
Epoch 50
Epoch 50
WP-1
577 (0.30%)
R1
6.63 ( ± 0.01)
6.61 ( ± 0.05)
6.66 ( ± 0.08)
2.03
R2
6.54 ( ± 0.02)
6.52 ( ± 0.04)
6.51 ( ± 0.05)
1.33
WP-3
1,252 (0.94%)
R1
7.10 ( ± 0.08)
7.09 ( ± 0.09)
7.07 ( ± 0.11)
2.89
R2
6.98 ( ± 0.05)
7.04 ( ± 0.10)
7.05 ( ± 0.23)
1.34
AU-1
39 (0.06%)
R1
7.53 ( ± 0.19)
7.60 ( ± 0.23)
7.72 ( ± 0.37)
1.44
Appendix
Table 14: Comparison of V3-2025.R1 and V3-2025.R2: mean ( ± standard deviation) over five runs. “Corrupted” is the number (fraction) of training observations whose image was corrected in V3-2025.R2; in addition, 23 training images were removed from each of AU-1 and AU-2. None of them are in the evaluation set. “Last 10” and “Last 5” are the medians of the evaluation RMSE over epochs 41–50 and 46–50 of each run. All values are in hPa. A large AU-3 R2 value is due to 2 runs that ended on a spike.
Data scarcity is a primary obstacle in developing robust Machine Learning (ML) models for detecting rapidly intensifying tropical cyclones. Traditional data augmentation techniques (rotation, flipping, brightness adjustment) fail to preserve the physical consistency and high-intensity gradients characteristic of rare Category 4-equivalent events, which constitute only 0.14% of our dataset (202 of 140,514 samples). We propose a physics-informed diffusion model based on the Context-UNet architecture to generate synthetic, multi-spectral satellite imagery of extreme weather events. Our model is conditioned on critical atmospheric parameters such as average wind speed, type of Ocean and stage of development (early, mature, late etc) -- the known drivers of rapid intensification. Using a controlled pre-generated noise sampling strategy and mixed-precision training, we generated 16×16 wind-field samples that are cropped from multi-spectral satellite imagery which preserve realistic spatial autocorrelation and physical consistency. Results demonstrate that our model successfully learns discriminative features across ten distinct context classes, effectively mitigating the data bottleneck. Specifically, we address the extreme class imbalance in our dataset, where Class 4 (Ocean 2, early stage with average wind speed 50kn hurricane) contains only 202 samples compared to 79,768 samples in Class 0. This generative framework provides a scalable solution for augmenting training datasets for operational weather detection algorithms. The average Results yield an average Log-Spectral Distance (LSD) of 4.5dB, demonstrating a scalable framework for enhancing operational weather detection algorithms.
Microwave satellite imagery plays a crucial role in monitoring tropical cyclone precipitation and intensity worldwide, but suffers from long revisit times, potentially missing rapid storm evolution phases. While this raises the need for an interpolation method, it is made challenging by the high level of heterogeneity of microwave data coming from different instruments. In this work, we introduce the first generative model that can be applied to multiple geospatial sources that change across samples, occur at irregular time intervals, are misaligned geographically, and come from instruments with varying characteristics. We apply this model to the case of spatio-temporal interpolation of tropical cyclone microwave images from other microwave and infrared instruments. We train using a self-supervised task in which a random source is masked and reconstructed, and show that it leads to a significant decrease in Continuous Ranked Probability Score over supervised training. We show a further improvement by combining infrared and microwave data compared to microwave only. Using these improvements, the generative model produces an ensemble mean on par with that of a deterministic model, while generating a power spectrum significantly closer to that of true observations. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first generative model that interpolates microwave images of cyclones by combining multiple microwave instruments and infrared observations at irregular time intervals.
Clément Dauvilliers, Claire Monteleoni
Inria · INRIA, Paris, Île-de-France, France · University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
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