Subglacial drainage modelling and Bayesian calibration using Gaussian Process emulators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subglacial drainage models sensitively depend on the values of numerous uncertain parameters. However, the computation time associated with running these models makes it difficult to quantify the associated uncertainty in model outputs and to use field data to calibrate parameter values. To overcome these computational limitations, we construct a Gaussian Process (GP) emulator that accelerates subglacial drainage modelling by ~1000x. The GP predicts spatiotemporally resolved water pressure as a function of eight model parameters and is trained using ensembles of up to 512 simulations with the Glacier Drainage System (GlaDS) model applied to the Kangerlussuaq sector of the western Greenland Ice Sheet. The GP reproduces the spatial patterns and daily temporal variations simulated by GlaDS within ~4%, with locally higher errors near moulins and during the early melt season. As an application of the GP, we compute the sensitivity of basal water pressure to each of the eight parameters and find that three parameters (ice-flow coefficient, bed bump aspect ratio and the subglacial cavity system conductivity) explain 90% of the variance in model outputs. Next, we explore using a borehole water-pressure timeseries to calibrate the eight uncertain parameters. We take a Bayesian perspective to quantify the uncertainty in parameter estimates and use the GP in place of the physics-based model to make Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling computationally feasible. We find meaningful constraints relative to the prior assumptions on most parameters and a factor-of-three reduction in uncertainty of the calibrated model predictions. However, significant differences between the calibrated model and the borehole data suggest that structural limitations of the model, rather than poorly constrained parameters or computational cost, remain the most important constraint on subglacial drainage modelling.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".