What do we do with model simulation crashes? Recommendations for global sensitivity analysis of earth and environmental systems models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Complex, software-intensive, technically advanced, and computationally demanding models, presumably with ever-growing realism and fidelity, have been widely used to simulate and predict the dynamics of the Earth and environmental systems. The parameter-induced simulation crash (failure) problem is typical across most of these models, despite considerable efforts that modellers have directed at model development and implementation over the last few decades. A simulation failure mainly occurs due to the violation of the numerical stability conditions, non-robust numerical implementations, or errors in programming. However, the existing sampling-based analysis techniques such as global sensitivity analysis (GSA) methods, which require running these models under many configurations of parameter values, are ill-equipped to effectively deal with model failures. To tackle this problem, we propose a novel approach that allows users to cope with failed designs (samples) during the GSA, without knowing where they took place and without re-running the entire experiment. This approach deems model crashes as missing data and uses strategies such as median substitution, single nearest neighbour, or response surface modelling to fill in for model crashes. We test the proposed approach on a 10-paramter HBV-SASK rainfall-runoff model and a 111-parameter MESH land surface-hydrology model. Our results show that response surface modelling is a superior strategy, out of the data filling strategies tested, and can scale well to the dimensionality of the model, sample size, and the ratio of number of failures to the sample size. Further, we conduct a "failure analysis" and discuss some possible causes of the MESH model failure.
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 | 0.054 | 0.287 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".