当前位置: X-MOL 学术Earth Space Sci. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Further Investigation Into Detection Efficiency and False Alarm Rate for the Geostationary Lightning Mappers Aboard GOES‐16 and GOES‐17
Earth and Space Science ( IF 3.1 ) Pub Date : 2020-12-09 , DOI: 10.1029/2020ea001237
Monte Bateman 1 , Douglas Mach 1 , Michael Stock 2
Affiliation  

The Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) is a geostationary lightning detection and location instrument, developed for the R generation of Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES‐R, S, T, and U). This paper details a new technique to assess detection efficiency (DE) and false alarm rate (FAR), which indicate how well the instrument is detecting lightning and rejecting nonlightning. In an attempt to compare GLM with the best possible ground truth data, we clustered several ground‐based lightning networks into a single “virtual” network and compare it to the GLM results. A major issue with determining the GLM DE and FAR values is that over much of the instrument field of view (FOV), there are no high DE systems. To assess the GLM DE and FAR over these regions, we modified our prior coincidence criteria by increasing the time window from ±1 s to as much as ±10 min to account for the lower DE of the ground truth systems. Using the expanded time window, we compare GLM flash data from August 1, 2019 through January 31, 2020 for both instruments against the virtual network lightning flash data. We find that increasing the time window, while maintaining the distance criteria of 50 km, greatly improve the DE and FAR values. With the full ±10 min time window, over the whole GLM FOV, the GLMs on GOES‐16 and GOES‐17 have a DE of over 90%. For the same time window, the FAR for GLM on GOES‐16 is just over 5%, while the FAR for the GLM on GOES‐17 is just under 20%.

中文翻译:

GOES‐16和GOES‐17上对地静止闪电测绘仪的检测效率和虚警率的进一步调查

对地静止闪电测绘仪(GLM)是对地静止闪电检测和定位仪器,专为R代对地静止运行环境卫星(GOES‐R,S,T和U)开发。本文详细介绍了一种评估检测效率(DE)和误报率(FAR)的新技术,这些技术可指示该仪器检测雷电和拒绝雷电的能力。为了将GLM与可能的最佳地面真实数据进行比较,我们将几个基于地面的闪电网络聚集成一个“虚拟”网络,并将其与GLM结果进行比较。确定GLM DE和FAR值的主要问题是,在仪器的大多数视场(FOV)中,没有高DE系统。为了评估这些地区的GLM DE和FAR,我们通过将时间窗口从±1秒增加到±10分钟来修改我们先前的重合标准,以说明地面实况系统的较低DE。使用扩展的时间窗口,我们将两种仪器的2019年8月1日至2020年1月31日的GLM闪存数据与虚拟网络闪电数据进行比较。我们发现,增加时间窗口,同时保持50 km的距离标准,可以大大提高DE和FAR值。在整个±10分钟的时间窗口内,在整个GLM FOV上,GOES-16和GOES-17上的GLM的DE都超过90%。在同一时间范围内,GOES-16上GLM的FAR略高于5%,而GOES-17上GLM的FAR略低于20%。我们将这两种仪器的2019年8月1日至2020年1月31日的GLM闪存数据与虚拟网络闪电闪存数据进行比较。我们发现,增加时间窗口,同时保持50 km的距离标准,可以大大提高DE和FAR值。在整个±10分钟的时间窗口内,在整个GLM FOV上,GOES-16和GOES-17上的GLM的DE都超过90%。在同一时间范围内,GOES-16上GLM的FAR略高于5%,而GOES-17上GLM的FAR略低于20%。我们将这两种仪器的2019年8月1日至2020年1月31日的GLM闪存数据与虚拟网络闪电闪存数据进行比较。我们发现,增加时间窗口,同时保持50 km的距离标准,可以大大提高DE和FAR值。在整个±10分钟的时间范围内,在整个GLM FOV上,GOES-16和GOES-17上的GLM的DE都超过90%。在同一时间范围内,GOES-16上GLM的FAR略高于5%,而GOES-17上GLM的FAR略低于20%。GOES-16和GOES-17上的GLM的DE超过90%。在同一时间范围内,GOES-16上GLM的FAR略高于5%,而GOES-17上GLM的FAR略低于20%。GOES-16和GOES-17上的GLM的DE超过90%。在同一时间范围内,GOES-16上GLM的FAR略高于5%,而GOES-17上GLM的FAR略低于20%。
更新日期:2020-12-09
down
wechat
bug