Revisiting the Basis of Sensitivity Analysis for Dynamical Earth System Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper investigates the problem of global sensitivity analysis (GSA) of Dynamical Earth System Models and proposes a basis for how such analyses should be performed. We argue that (a) performance metric‐based approaches to parameter GSA are actually identifiability analyses, (b) the use of a performance metric to assess sensitivity unavoidably distorts the information provided by the model about relative parameter importance, and (c) it is a serious conceptual flaw to interpret the results of such an analysis as being consistent and accurate indications of the sensitivity of the model response to parameter perturbations. Further, because such approaches depend on availability of system state/output observational data, the analysis they provide is necessarily incomplete. Here we frame the GSA problem from first principles, using trajectories of the partial derivatives of model outputs with respect to controlling factors as the theoretical basis for sensitivity, and construct a global sensitivity matrix from which statistical indices of total period time‐aggregate parameter importance , and time series of time‐varying parameter importance, can be inferred. We demonstrate this framework using the HBV ‐ SASK conceptual hydrologic model applied to the Oldman basin in Canada and show that it disagrees with performance metric‐based methods regarding which parameters exert the strongest controls on model behavior. Further, it is highly efficient, requiring less than 1,000 base samples to obtain stable and robust parameter importance assessments for our 10‐parameter example.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".