MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using Machine Learning to Generate a GISS ModelE Calibrated Physics Ensemble (CPE)

2025· preprint· en· W4409126167 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory S. Elsaesser, Marcus van Lier‐Walqui, Qingyuan Yang, Maxwell Kelley, Andrew S. Ackerman, Ann M. Fridlind, Gregory V Cesana, Gavin A. Schmidt, Jingbo Wu, Ali Behrangi, Suzana J. Camargo, Bithi De, Kuniaki Inoue, Nicolas Leitmann- Niimi, Jeffrey D. O. Strong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnsemble forecastingEnsemble learningComputer scienceMachine learningPhysicsEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A neural network (NN) surrogate of the NASA GISS ModelE atmosphere (version E3) is trained on a perturbed parameter ensemble (PPE) spanning 45 physics parameters and 36 outputs. The NN is leveraged in a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Bayesian parameter inference framework to generate a second posterior constrained ensemble coined a “calibrated physics ensemble”, or CPE. The CPE members are characterized by diverse parameter combinations and are, by definition, close to top-of-atmosphere radiative balance, and must broadly agree with numerous hydrologic, energy cycle and radiative forcing metrics simultaneously. Global observations of numerous cloud, environment, and radiation properties (provided by global satellite products) are crucial for CPE generation. The inference framework explicitly accounts for discrepancies (or biases) in satellite products during CPE generation. We demonstrate that product discrepancies strongly impact calibration of important model parameter settings (e.g., convective plume entrainment rates; fall speed for cloud ice). Structural improvements new to E3 are retained across CPE members (e.g., stratocumulus simulation). Notably, the framework improved the simulation of shallow cumulus and Amazon rainfall while not degrading radiation fields, an upgrade that neither default parameters nor Latin Hypercube parameter searching achieved. Analyses of the initial PPE suggested several parameters were unimportant for output variation. However, many “unimportant” parameters were needed for CPE generation, a result that brings to the forefront how parameter importance should be determined in PPEs. From the CPE, two diverse 45-dimensional parameter configurations are retained to generate radiatively-balanced, auto-tuned atmospheres that were used in two E3 submissions to CMIP6

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismology and Earthquake StudiesFrench-language works237,207