Why is there so much variability in crop multi-model studies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It has become common to compare crop model results in multi-model simulation experiments. In general, one observes a large variability in such studies, which reduces the confidence one can have in such models. It is important to understand the causes of this variability as a first step toward reducing it. For a given data set, the variability in a multi-model study can arise from uncertainty in structure or in parameter values for a given structure. Previous studies have made assumptions about the origin of parameter uncertainty, and then quantified its contribution, generally finding that parameter uncertainty is less important than structure uncertainty. However, those studies do not take account of the full parameter variability in multi-model studies. Here we propose estimating parameter uncertainty based on open-call multi-model ensembles where the same structure is used by more than one modeling group. The variability in such a case is due to the full variability of parameters among modeling groups. Then structure and parameter contributions can be estimated sing random effects analysis of variance. Based on three multi-model studies for simulating wheat phenology, it is found that the contribution of parameter uncertainty to total uncertainty is, on average, more than twice as large as the uncertainty from structure. A second estimate, based on a comparison of two different calibration approaches for multiple models leads to a very similar result. We conclude that improvement of crop models requires as much attention to parameters as to model structure.
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 | 0.039 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".