Computationally efficient subglacial drainage modeling using Gaussian Process emulators: GlaDS-GP v1.0
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subglacial drainage models represent water flow at the ice–bed interface through coupled distributed and channelized systems to determine water pressure, discharge and drainage system geometry. While they are used to understand processes such as the relationship between surface melt and ice flow, the number of uncertain model parameters and the computational cost of running models makes it difficult to adequately explore the high-dimensional parameter space and evaluate uncertainty in model predictions. Here, we develop Gaussian Process (GP) emulators that make fast predictions with associated uncertainty of subglacial drainage model outputs. Using a truncated principal component basis representation, we construct a GP emulator for diurnally averaged subglacial water pressure. We also explore emulation of scalar variables describing drainage efficiency and configuration. We train the emulators using ensembles of up to 512 simulations varying eight parameters of the Glacier Drainage System (GlaDS) model on a synthetic domain intended to represent an ice-sheet margin. The emulators make predictions ∼1000 times faster than GlaDS simulations, with error < 3% for the water pressure field and ∼5–9% for drainage efficiency and configuration. We apply the emulators to explore the eight-dimensional parameter space by computing variance-based parameter-sensitivity indices, finding that three parameters (ice-flow coefficient, bed bump aspect ratio and the subglacial cavity system conductivity) explain 90% of the variance in modelled water pressure in response to parameter changes. The GP emulator approach described here is well-suited to integrate observational data with models to make calibrated, credible predictions of subglacial drainage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".