Statistical downscaling is the task of reconstructing high-resolution meteorological fields from coarse inputs. A principled approach formulates downscaling as a Bayesian inverse problem, using a diffusion prior over high-resolution fields and incorporating the coarse field only at inference through a likelihood. This decouples the prior from the coarse source, allowing one pretrained model to adapt to different sources. However, two challenges limit this flexibility: (1) when coarse and target fields come from different reanalysis systems, no fixed coarsening operator can capture their relationship; and (2) guidance gradients can differ by orders of magnitude across variables, making a single guidance strength ineffective. This paper addresses both challenges within the guidance loop, leaving the prior unchanged. We learn the forward operator from paired data and normalize the gradient per channel. We show that this normalization corresponds to steepest descent under a block-max norm, allowing a single guidance strength across variables. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/CarloSaccardi/operator-aware-weather-downscaling.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of surface sensible heat flux (sshf) and friction velocity (zust) between the coarse ERA5 and the high-resolution CERRA. Beyond the resolution gap, the fields differ in structure and large-scale pattern, implying an unknown and system-dependent coarse-to-fine map.
Region
Operator
u10
v10
t2m
sshf
zust
sp
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
C. Europe
Bicubic A
1.199
0.739
1.174
0.718
1.338
0.806
33.83
15.48
0.199
0.119
131.2
75.46
Ours
0.986
0.553
0.982
0.547
1.021
0.571
32.70
13.33
0.090
0.047
92.05
55.96
Iberia
Bicubic A
1.362
0.827
1.372
0.828
1.809
1.152
41.18
20.43
0.174
0.095
156.1
88.86
Ours
1.197
0.678
1.217
0.684
1.377
0.824
40.23
18.28
0.096
0.052
106.7
63.28
Table 1: Operator ablation. RMSE and CRPS per variable, both regions. Both rows use per-channel normalization and the same ζ ; only the likelihood operator differs. The learned operator improves every variable. Best per column in bold .
Region
Guidance
u10
v10
t2m
sshf
zust
sp
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
C. Europe
DPS ( Chung et al., 2023 )
0.969
0.539
0.966
0.535
1.092
0.608
31.27
12.79
0.096
0.049
153.7
93.17
Ours
0.986
0.553
0.982
0.547
1.021
0.571
32.70
13.33
0.090
0.047
92.05
55.96
Iberia
DPS ( Chung et al., 2023 )
1.172
0.661
1.186
0.662
1.413
0.842
38.22
17.28
0.096
0.051
161.6
91.88
Ours
1.197
0.678
1.217
0.684
1.377
0.824
40.23
18.28
0.096
0.052
106.7
63.28
Table 2: Normalization ablation. RMSE and CRPS per variable, both regions. Both rows use the learned operator; only the guidance scaling differs, each arm at its own tuned ζ . A single per-sample scale (DPS) leaves the high-magnitude variable sp badly under-served (up to +67% RMSE), whereas ours keeps every variable controlled. Best per column in bold .
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
u10
v10
t2m
sshf
zust
sp
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
CondDiff
0.904
0.489
0.903
0.486
0.843
0.452
27.08
10.22
0.075
0.039
59.98
35.56
CorrDiff [ Mardani et al., 2025 ]
0.884
0.477
0.877
0.471
0.831
0.449
25.76
9.782
0.072
0.038
72.01
41.82
U-Net †
0.856
0.616
0.852
0.610
0.831
0.641
25.42
12.76
0.071
0.049
116.0
87.82
Bicubic A
1.199
0.739
1.174
0.718
1.338
0.806
33.83
15.48
0.199
0.119
131.2
75.46
DPS [ Chung et al., 2023 ]
0.969
0.539
0.966
0.535
1.092
0.608
31.27
12.79
0.096
0.049
153.7
93.17
Appendix
Table 3: Central Europe: full comparison. Conditional baselines (top) condition on the coarse field at training time; the inference-time methods (bottom) use it through the likelihood, with Ours our full method. Best per column in bold (lower is better). † The U-Net is deterministic, so its CRPS is a single-prediction MAE, not comparable to the 8 -member ensemble CRPS; it is excluded from the CRPS comparison.
Model
u10
v10
t2m
sshf
zust
sp
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
CondDiff
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.029
0.015
3.29
0.841
0.0018
0.0010
3.76
2.41
CorrDiff [ Mardani et al., 2025 ]
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.009
0.028
0.015
3.21
0.867
0.0016
0.0009
2.38
1.34
U-Net †
0.019
0.012
0.019
0.012
0.026
0.018
3.11
1.06
0.0015
0.0011
3.09
2.40
Bicubic A
0.035
0.023
0.031
0.019
0.045
0.031
3.32
1.06
0.0084
0.0054
9.20
5.15
DPS [ Chung et al., 2023 ]
0.021
0.010
0.021
0.009
0.035
0.021
3.39
1.00
0.0036
0.0018
13.85
8.96
Appendix
Table 4: Central Europe: bootstrap intervals. Each entry is the half-width ( ± ) of the 95% interval for the matching entry in Table 3 ; the full interval is that table’s value ± the half-width here. From 2000 resamples of the test fields in blocks of 24 . The interval covers the test draw only; with a single training seed it says nothing about seed-to-seed variability. † U-Net CRPS is a single-member MAE (see Table 3 ).
Model
u10
v10
t2m
sshf
zust
sp
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
CondDiff
1.039
0.552
1.070
0.571
0.916
0.500
26.47
9.923
0.077
0.040
74.09
45.00
CorrDiff [ Mardani et al., 2025 ]
1.020
0.541
1.036
0.550
0.917
0.507
25.28
9.548
0.074
0.039
79.20
46.70
U-Net †
0.998
0.702
1.015
0.714
0.916
0.733
25.08
12.30
0.073
0.050
127.4
98.46
Bicubic A
1.362
0.827
1.372
0.828
1.809
1.152
41.18
20.43
0.174
0.095
156.1
88.86
DPS [ Chung et al., 2023 ]
1.172
0.661
1.186
0.662
1.413
0.842
38.22
17.28
0.096
0.051
161.6
91.88
Appendix
Table 5: Iberia: full comparison. Layout and conventions as in Table 3 . † The U-Net CRPS is a single-member MAE and is excluded from the CRPS comparison.
Model
u10
v10
t2m
sshf
zust
sp
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
CondDiff
0.025
0.012
0.027
0.014
0.022
0.011
1.99
0.592
0.0017
0.0008
6.34
4.34
CorrDiff [ Mardani et al., 2025 ]
0.027
0.013
0.027
0.014
0.023
0.013
2.10
0.629
0.0017
0.0009
2.95
1.85
U-Net †
0.025
0.016
0.027
0.017
0.023
0.016
2.00
0.767
0.0017
0.0011
4.96
4.08
Bicubic A
0.031
0.020
0.028
0.017
0.039
0.029
2.54
1.11
0.0078
0.0034
10.99
5.70
DPS [ Chung et al., 2023 ]
0.024
0.013
0.026
0.013
0.043
0.029
2.60
1.08
0.0024
0.0012
11.05
5.99
Appendix
Table 6: Iberia: bootstrap intervals. Each entry is the half-width ( ± ) of the 95% interval for the matching entry in Table 5 ; the full interval is that table’s value ± the half-width here. Resampling as in Table 4 .
Figure 2: Power spectral density, Central Europe. Test split, 8-member ensembles. The inset magnifies the highest 0.15 decades of wavenumber, where the curves separate.
Figure 3: Marginal distributions, Central Europe. log10 of the probability density over the test split, so the tails stay visible.
Figure 4: Power spectral density, Iberia. Test split, 8-member ensembles. The inset magnifies the highest 0.15 decades of wavenumber, where the curves separate.
Figure 5: Marginal distributions, Iberia. log10 of the probability density over the test split, so the tails stay visible.
Region
Coarse source
u10
v10
t2m
sshf
zust
sp
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
C. Europe
ERA5 ∼25 km
0.986
0.553
0.982
0.547
1.021
0.571
32.70
13.33
0.090
0.047
92.05
55.96
ERA5 ∼50 km
0.994
0.557
0.989
0.551
1.055
0.590
36.79
14.80
0.091
0.047
95.68
58.85
Iberia
ERA5 ∼25 km
1.197
0.678
1.217
0.684
1.377
0.824
40.23
18.28
0.096
0.052
106.7
63.28
ERA5 ∼50 km
1.207
0.683
1.224
0.686
1.403
0.842
42.49
19.31
0.098
0.053
107.3
63.73
Appendix
Table 7: Transfer to a ∼50 km coarse source. RMSE and CRPS per variable, both regions. Only Aϕ is refit; the prior is unchanged. The ∼25 km rows repeat Ours from Tables 3 and 5 .
Region
Coarse source
u10
v10
t2m
sshf
zust
sp
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
C. Europe
ERA5 ∼25 km
0.022
0.011
0.021
0.010
0.032
0.019
3.65
1.09
0.0023
0.0011
3.62
2.46
ERA5 ∼50 km
0.025
0.013
0.022
0.010
0.041
0.024
4.29
1.25
0.0027
0.0013
5.08
3.57
Iberia
ERA5 ∼25 km
0.026
0.014
0.028
0.014
0.031
0.020
2.74
1.18
0.0023
0.0012
5.24
3.43
ERA5 ∼50 km
0.032
0.016
0.033
0.017
0.036
0.024
3.06
1.40
0.0025
0.0013
7.18
4.70
Appendix
Table 8: Transfer to a ∼50 km coarse source: bootstrap intervals. Each entry is the half-width ( ± ) of the 95% interval for the matching entry in Table 7 . Resampling as in Table 4 . The intervals for the ∼25 km rows are the Ours rows of Tables 4 and 6 .
Figure 6: sshf on a representative sample, Central Europe. (a) coarse ERA5 input, (b) CERRA target, (c) DPS with a fixed linear operator, (d) our learned operator.
Figure 7: Surface pressure on a single test timestep, Central Europe. Top: CERRA target and the 8 -member ensemble mean from each method. Bottom: error fields on a common scale; (d) bicubic ERA5 residual, (e) ours, (f) DPS.
Meteorological downscaling is crucial for high-resolution regional climate forecasting and disaster early warning. While neural operators have emerged as a promising paradigm for modeling complex spatiotemporal mappings, existing frameworks often struggle with spherical manifold geometric distortions, inherent atmospheric multi-scale coupling mismatches, and lack of explicit atmospheric laws. We propose the Spherical Physics-informed Neural Operator, which utilizes a Spherical Laplacian Decomposition to partition atmospheric fields into hierarchical frequency components, maintaining exact point-wise correspondence across scales. To evaluate these representations at arbitrary locations, we introduce a localized spherical integral operator that approximates continuous kernel transforms via geometry-aware attention. Dynamical consistency is further enforced by embedding differentiable constraints into the learning process. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our framework attains superior accuracy and zero-shot generalization across various meteorological variables and unseen queries, representing a robust and interpretable solution for global-to-regional meteorological downscaling.
Yiqiang Ye, Yichi Wang, Haodi Zhang +5
College of Computer and Software Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China · School of Computer Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
Probabilistic downscaling models the conditional distribution of high-resolution fields given coarse inputs and is a core challenge in atmospheric science, climate modeling, and other multiscale physical systems. A widely used paradigm decomposes the problem into a deterministic mean predictor followed by a stochastic residual generator. While effective in idealized settings, this mean-residual approach frequently produces biased and underdispersive ensembles in real-world applications. We identify a fundamental source of this failure: residual target misspecification, where the residual distribution induced during training systematically differs from the correction distribution required at test time, a mismatch amplified by downscaling bias. We theoretically connect this misspecification to underdispersion through the spread-skill ratio and show that conditional residual distribution matching controls both residual-energy and conditional-mean mismatch. Motivated by this analysis, we introduce ReMatch (Residual Distribution Matching), which aligns training residual targets toward a held-out calibration regime via optimal transport. On a controlled synthetic benchmark with varying bias levels and a real-world HRRR-ERA5 wind-field downscaling task, ReMatch substantially reduces underdispersion, improves calibration, and outperforms strong mean-residual and super-resolution baselines. Our code is available at https://github.com/sdean-group/ReMatch.git.
Yujin Kim, Nidhi Soma, Sarah Dean
Department of Computer Science Cornell University Ithaca, NY, 14853
Accurate high-resolution wind field simulations are critical for resolving fine-scale atmospheric dynamics, yet the simulation of wind fields in Earth System Models (ESMs) remains limited by coarse spatial resolution and systematic biases. To address this, data-driven down scaling techniques have been widely used to enhance coarse-resolution ESM outputs. However, existing methods are typically tied to fixed discretizations, limiting generalization across models with different native resolutions. Here we formulate global near-surface wind downscaling as an operator-learning problem on continuous atmospheric state fields and develop a downscaling neural operator that maps coarse-scale fields to fine-scale counterparts across heterogeneous discretizations. The operator learning-based neural downscaling framework outperforms dominant baselines, recovers fine-scale physical structures, and generalizes to previously unseen ESMs and future climate scenarios without retraining, while preserving long-term wind projection trends. These findings establish a generalizable paradigm for high-resolution climate downscaling across diverse simulation outputs and future scenarios.
Chenxi Yu, Jianan Wei, Hanlin Kong +3
State Key Lab of Brain-Machine Intelligence, Zhejiang University · Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China · State Key Laboratory of Earth System Numerical Modeling and Application, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences