Vivian Liu’s research while affiliated with Johns Hopkins University and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (2)


Top, probability distributions of atmospheric density at GRACE‐B as a function of (a) quiet‐ and storm‐times, (b) quiet‐times and storm main phase, and (c) quiet times and storm recovery phase. Bottom, cumulative distributions of atmospheric density as a function of (d) quiet‐ and storm‐times, (e) quiet‐times and storm main phase, and (f) quiet‐times and storm recovery phase. The green line in the cumulative distributions shows the maximum difference between each plot's quiet‐time distribution and storm distribution. The KS statistic (Max Difference) and p‐value are shown in the legend.
Correlation matrices for atmospheric density and (a) solar indices, (b) the FISM2 data set and (c) solar wind data and geomagnetic indices (y‐axis) as a function of all‐time, quiet‐time, storm‐time and storm main and recovery phases (x‐axis). The color and number indicate the absolute value of the correlation.
Metrics for the three Random Forest models as a function of data set; train, test, and GRACE A and CHAMP out of sample (OOS). (a) The square of the correlation coefficients. (b) The mean absolute error.
The MDA feature importance for the FISM (top) and FISM/GEO models (bottom). In both panels, the features are ranked from most important (top) to least important (bottom).
Select case studies comparing observed density from the out‐of‐sample CHAMP data set, and those derived from the three Random Forest models and the NRLMSIS model along the orbit of CHAMP during a (a) geomagnetically quiet period, (c) small geomagnetic storm, (c) moderate geomagnetic storm, and (d) large geomagnetic storm. From top to bottom, each panel shows (i) Sym‐H, (ii) AE, (iii) CHAMP observed density, (iv) model‐data comparison and (v) the Mean Absolute Error (MAE, lower is better). In panels (iv) and (v) the densities and MAE have been averaged with a 90 min rolling window to make comparisons easier, highlight the background change in density during each storm, and illustrate how the errors (MAE) change throughout each case study. Observed densities are blue, FISM/GEO modeled densities orange, FISM modeled densities green, solar‐modeled densities red, and NRLMSIS densities are purple.

+1

Understanding and Modeling the Dynamics of Storm‐Time Atmospheric Neutral Density Using Random Forests
  • Article
  • Full-text available

January 2025

·

22 Reads

K. Murphy

·

·

V. Liu

·

[...]

·

I. J. Rae

Atmospheric neutral density is a crucial component to accurately predict and track the motion of satellites. During periods of elevated solar and geomagnetic activity atmospheric neutral density becomes highly variable and dynamic. This variability and enhanced dynamics make it difficult to accurately model neutral density leading to increased errors which propagate from neutral density models through to orbit propagation models. In this paper we investigate the dynamics of neutral density during geomagnetic storms. We use a combination of solar and geomagnetic variables to develop three Random Forest machine learning models of neutral density. These models are based on (a) slow solar indices, (b) high cadence solar irradiance, and (c) combined high‐cadence solar irradiance and geomagnetic indices. Each model is validated using an out‐of‐sample data set using analysis of residuals and typical metrics. During quiet‐times, all three models perform well; however, during geomagnetic storms, the combined high cadence solar iradiance/geomagnetic model performs significantly better than the models based solely on solar activity. The combined model capturing an additional 10% in the variability of density and having an error up to six times smaller during geomagnetic storms then the solar models. Overall, this work demonstrates the importance of including geomagnetic activity in the modeling of atmospheric density and serves as a proof of concept for using machine learning algorithms to model, and in the future forecast atmospheric density for operational use.

Download

Understanding and Modeling the Dynamics of Storm-time Atmospheric Neutral Density using Random Forests

March 2024

·

36 Reads

Atmospheric neutral density is a crucial component to accurately predicting and tracking the motion of satellites. During periods of elevated solar and geomagnetic activity atmospheric neutral density becomes highly variable and dynamic. This variability and enhanced dynamics make it difficult to accurately model neutral density leading to increased errors which propagate from neutral density models through to orbit propagation models. In this paper we investigate the dynamics of neutral density during geomagnetic storms. We use a combination of solar and geomagnetic variables to develop three Random Forest machine learning models of neutral density. These models are based on (1) slow solar indices, (2) high cadence solar irradiance, and (3) combined high-cadence solar irradiance and geomagnetic indices. During quiet-times all three models perform well; however, during geomagnetic storms the combined high cadence solar iradiance/geomagnetic model performs significantly better than the models based solely on solar activity. Overall, this work demonstrates the importance of including geomagnetic activity in the modeling of atmospheric density and serves as a proof of concept for using machine learning algorithms to model, and in the future forecast atmospheric density for operational use.