MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412012654 · doi:10.5194/gmd-18-4045-2025

Computationally efficient subglacial drainage modelling using Gaussian process emulators: GlaDS-GP v1.0

2025· article· en· W4412012654 on OpenAlexafffund
Tim Hill, Derek Bingham, Gwenn E. Flowers, Matthew J. Hoffman

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscientific model development · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOffice of Science
KeywordsGaussian processProcess (computing)DrainageComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceGaussianAlgorithmGeologyComputational sciencePhysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 (PC) 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 errors <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 integrating 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 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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscientific model developmentSame topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207