留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

基于白谱法指数群驱动的全球电离层TEC深度学习预报研究

孙嘉豪,  王劲松,  陈洲

孙嘉豪, 王劲松, 陈洲. 基于白谱法指数群驱动的全球电离层TEC深度学习预报研究[J]. 空间科学学报. doi: 10.11728/cjss2026.05.2026-0022
引用本文: 孙嘉豪, 王劲松, 陈洲. 基于白谱法指数群驱动的全球电离层TEC深度学习预报研究[J]. 空间科学学报. doi: 10.11728/cjss2026.05.2026-0022
SUN Jiahao, WANG Jinsong, CHEN Zhou. Research on Global Ionospheric TEC Deep Learning Forecasting Based on Spectral Whitening Method Index Group (in Chinese). Chinese Journal of Space Science, 2026, 46(5): 1-12 doi: 10.11728/cjss2026.05.2026-0022
Citation: SUN Jiahao, WANG Jinsong, CHEN Zhou. Research on Global Ionospheric TEC Deep Learning Forecasting Based on Spectral Whitening Method Index Group (in Chinese). Chinese Journal of Space Science, 2026, 46(5): 1-12 doi: 10.11728/cjss2026.05.2026-0022

基于白谱法指数群驱动的全球电离层TEC深度学习预报研究

doi: 10.11728/cjss2026.05.2026-0022 cstr: 32142.14.cjss.2026-0022
基金项目: 国家重点研发计划青年科学家项目(2025YFF0522000), 中国气象局空间天气监测预警重点创新团队项目(CMA2024ZD01)和中国气象局电离层天气预报预警青年创新团队项目(CMA2024QN09)共同资助
详细信息
    作者简介:
    • 孙嘉豪 男, 2001年出生于江西省九江市, 现为南昌大学信息工程学院人工智能专业硕士研究生, 主要研究方向为基于深度学习的全球电离层预报、白谱法指数在空间天气中的应用等. E-mail: sunjiahao@email.ncu.edu.cn
    通讯作者:
    • 陈洲 男, 1986年出生于湖北省黄冈市, 现为南昌大学教授、博士生导师, 国家高层次青年人才, 主要研究方向为从太阳风到电离层的全链路过程与人工智能建模, 现以执行首席科学家参与研发全球首个全链条空间天气AI模型“风宇”. E-mail: chenzhou760@foxmail.com
  • 中图分类号: P352

Research on Global Ionospheric TEC Deep Learning Forecasting Based on Spectral Whitening Method Index Group

  • 摘要: 全球电离层总电子含量(TEC)的时空变化直接影响全球导航卫星系统(GNSS)的定位精度和通信系统可靠性. 针对传统太阳活动与地磁指数时间分辨率低、更新不及时, 限制极端空间天气条件下数据驱动预报性能的问题, 提出基于白谱法(SWM)的物理驱动指数群, 引入高纬扰动指数表征日地能量耦合过程, 并结合深度神经网络与3D Swin Transformer构建三维电子密度重构和时空预报两阶段框架. 结果表明, SWM指数与传统指数保持高度相关, 其高频物理特征可加快模型收敛、提高稳定性; SWM驱动模型显著优于IRI-2020经验模型, 并能抑制长时效预报的误差累积. 该指数群具有较强的实时更新和扰动捕捉能力, 可为高性能、业务化全球空间天气预报提供新的技术路径.

     

  • 图  1  极区地磁台站分布

    Figure  1.  Distribution of polar geomagnetic stations

    图  2  基于3D Swin Transformer的时空序列预报模型架构

    Figure  2.  Architecture of the spatiotemporal sequence forecasting model based on 3D Swin Transformer

    图  3  2013年10月SWM驱动指数与传统驱动指数对比

    Figure  3.  Comparison between SWM-based physical driver indices and traditional driver indices in October 2013

    图  4  SWM驱动模型与传统驱动模型在训练与验证阶段的损失曲线对比

    Figure  4.  Comparison of loss function evolution during training and validation phases for SWM-driven and traditional-driven models

    图  5  2019年DOY 90~96地磁平静期间各预报模型的统计性能指标演化对比

    Figure  5.  Temporal evolution of forecast performance metrics among different models during the geomagnetic quiet period of DOY 90-96, 2019

    图  6  2019年DOY 90~93地磁平静期间全球TEC空间分布预报结果对比

    Figure  6.  Comparison of global TEC spatial distribution forecast results during the geomagnetic quiet period of DOY 90-93, 2019

    图  7  2018年3月磁暴期间(DOY 76~83)各预报模型的统计性能指标演化对比

    Figure  7.  Temporal evolution of statistical performance metrics among forecasting models during the March 2018 geomagnetic storm (DOY 76-83)

    图  8  2018年3月磁暴主相期间(DOY 76~79)全球TEC空间分布预报结果快照对比

    Figure  8.  Snapshot comparison of global TEC spatial distribution forecast results during the main phase of the March 2018 geomagnetic storm (DOY 76-79)

    图  9  2019-2020年不同模型24 h预报逐小时全球平均绝对误差(MAD)占比分布直方图

    Figure  9.  Percentage distribution of hourly global mean absolute deviation (MAD) for 24 h forecasts by different models during 2019-2020

    表  1  第一阶段DNN的超参数设置

    Table  1.   Hyperparameter configuration for the first-stage DNN

    参数名称参数值
    Input dimension12
    Hidden layer dimensions[512, 256, 128, 64, 16]
    Output dimension1
    Batch size32768
    ××
    16
    OptimizerAdam
    Loss functionRSE loss
    Learning rate$ 1\times {10}^{-2} $
    Epochs100
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  2  第二阶段时空演化模块(3D Swin Transformer)的超参数设置

    Table  2.   Hyperparameter configuration for the second-stage spatiotemporal evolution module (3D Swin Transformer)

    参数名称参数值
    Embedding dimension96
    Number of attention heads[4, 6, 12, 24]
    Block size168
    Batch size4
    OptimizerAdamW
    Loss functionRSE loss
    Learning rate$ 1\times {10}^{-4} $
    Epochs100
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  3  2019年DOY 90~96地磁平静期间不同模型的平均预报性能对比

    Table  3.   Comparison of mean forecast performance among different models during the geomagnetic quiet period of DOY 90-96, 2019

    指数驱动模型R2MAD/TECURMSE/TECU
    SWM指数群驱动0.8881.4422.201
    传统指数群驱动0.8911.4332.162
    IRI-20200.6972.9663.61
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  4  2018年3月磁暴期间不同模型的平均预报性能对比

    Table  4.   Comparison of mean forecast performance among different models during the March 2018 geomagnetic storm

    指数驱动模型R2MAD/TECURMSE/TECU
    SWM指数群驱动0.9021.6142.477
    传统指数群驱动0.8961.6962.532
    IRI-20200.7882.6993.680
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] HOFMANN-WELLENHOF B, LICHTENEGGER H, WASLE E. GNSS–Global Navigation Satellite Systems: GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, and More[M]. Vienna: Springer, 2008. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-211-73017-1
    [2] MENDILLO M. Storms in the ionosphere: patterns and processes for total electron content[J]. Reviews of Geophysics, 2006, 44(4): RG4001 doi: 10.1029/2005RG000193
    [3] CHEN Z, AN B K, LIAO W T, et al. Ionospheric electron density model by electron density grid deep neural network (EDG-DNN)[J]. Atmosphere, 2023, 14(5): 810 doi: 10.3390/atmos14050810
    [4] BILITZA D, ALTADILL D, TRUHLIK V, et al. International Reference Ionosphere 2016: from ionospheric climate to real-time weather predictions[J]. Space Weather, 2017, 15(2): 418-429 doi: 10.1002/2016SW001593
    [5] BILITZA D. IRI the international standard for the ionosphere[J]. Advances in Radio Science, 2018, 16: 1-11 doi: 10.5194/ars-16-1-2018
    [6] ROBLE R G, RIDLEY E C, RICHMOND A D, et al. A coupled thermosphere/ionosphere general circulation model[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 1988, 15(12): 1325-1328 doi: 10.1029/GL015i012p01325
    [7] MASSON A, FUNG S F, CAMPOREALE E, et al. Heliophysics and space weather information architecture and innovative solutions: current status and ways forward[J]. Advances in Space Research, 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2024.05.052
    [8] CHEN Z, LIAO W T, LI H M, et al. Prediction of global ionospheric TEC based on deep learning[J]. Space Weather, 2022, 20(4): e2021SW002854 doi: 10.1029/2021SW002854
    [9] CHEN Z, JIN M W, DENG Y, et al. Improvement of a deep learning algorithm for total electron content maps: image completion[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 2019, 124(1): 790-800 doi: 10.1029/2018JA026167
    [10] LIU L, ZOU S S, YAO Y B, et al. Forecasting global ionospheric TEC using deep learning approach[J]. Space Weather, 2020, 18(11): e2020SW002501 doi: 10.1029/2020SW002501
    [11] LEE S, JI E Y, MOON Y J, et al. One-day forecasting of global TEC using a novel deep learning model[J]. Space Weather, 2021, 19(1): 2020SW002600 doi: 10.1029/2020SW002600
    [12] PAN Y, JIN M W, ZHANG S R, et al. TEC map completion using DCGAN and Poisson blending[J]. Space Weather, 2020, 18(5): e2019SW002390 doi: 10.1029/2019SW002390
    [13] WANG Z H, ZOU S S, SUN H, et al. Forecast global ionospheric TEC: apply modified U-Net on VISTA TEC data set[J]. Space Weather, 2023, 21(8): e2023SW003494 doi: 10.1029/2023SW003494
    [14] CAMPOREALE E. The challenge of machine learning in space weather: nowcasting and forecasting[J]. Space Weather, 2019, 17(8): 1166-1207 doi: 10.1029/2018SW002061
    [15] CHEN Z, WANG J S, DENG Y, et al. Extraction of the geomagnetic activity effect from TEC data: a comparison between the spectral whitening method and 28 day running median[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 2017, 122(3): 3632-3639 doi: 10.1002/2016JA023412
    [16] REN X D, YANG P X, MEI D K, et al. Global ionospheric TEC forecasting for geomagnetic storm time using a deep learning-based multi-model ensemble method[J]. Space Weather, 2023, 21(3): e2022SW003231 doi: 10.1029/2022SW003231
    [17] TENFJORD P, ØSTGAARD N. Energy transfer and flow in the solar wind-magnetosphere-ionosphere system: a new coupling function[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 2013, 118(9): 5659-5672 doi: 10.1002/jgra.50545
    [18] WANG J S, CHEN Z, HUANG C M. A method to identify aperiodic disturbances in the ionosphere[J]. Annales Geophysicae, 2014, 32(5): 563-569 doi: 10.5194/angeo-32-563-2014
    [19] CHEN Z, WANG J S, HUANG C M, et al. A new pair of indices to describe the relationship between ionospheric disturbances and geomagnetic activity[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 2014, 119(12): 10156-10163 doi: 10.1002/2014JA020438
    [20] 赵瑜馨, 毛田, 陈洲, 等. 一种基于白谱法的电离层天气扰动指数[J]. 空间科学学报, 2017, 37(3): 270-276 doi: 10.11728/cjss2017.03.270

    ZHAO Yuxin, MAO Tian, CHEN Zhou, et al. Ionospheric weather disturbance indices based on spectral whitening[J]. Chinese Journal of Space Science, 2017, 37(3): 270-276 doi: 10.11728/cjss2017.03.270
    [21] ZHAO M X, WANG J S, ZHAO X W. A new index to describe the response of geomagnetic disturbance to the energy injection from the solar wind[J]. Universe, 2022, 8(10): 506 doi: 10.3390/universe8100506
    [22] CHEN Z, ZHOU K C, WANG J S, et al. A new index to describe the relationship between solar extreme ultraviolet variation and solar activity[J]. The Astrophysical Journal, 2023, 958(1): 69 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf9f7
    [23] BI K F, XIE L X, ZHANG H H, et al. Accurate medium-range global weather forecasting with 3D neural networks[J]. Nature, 2023, 619(7970): 533-538 doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06185-3
  • 加载中
图(9) / 表(4)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  429
  • HTML全文浏览量:  73
  • PDF下载量:  24
  • 被引次数: 

    0(来源:Crossref)

    0(来源:其他)

出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2026-01-27
  • 修回日期:  2026-10-09
  • 网络出版日期:  2026-09-01

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回