Parameter Estimation in Land Surface Models: Challenges and Opportunities With Data Assimilation and Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurately predicting terrestrial ecosystem responses to climate change over long‐timescales is crucial for addressing global challenges. This relies on mechanistic modeling of ecosystem processes through land surface models (LSMs). Despite their importance, LSMs face significant uncertainties due to poorly constrained parameters, especially in carbon cycle predictions. This paper reviews the progress made in using data assimilation (DA) for LSM parameter optimization, focusing on carbon‐water‐vegetation interactions, as well as discussing the technical challenges faced by the community. These challenges include identifying sensitive model parameters and their prior distributions, characterizing errors due to observation biases and model‐data inconsistencies, developing observation operators to interface between the model and the observations, tackling spatial and temporal heterogeneity as well as dealing with large and multiple data sets, and including the spin‐up and historical period in the assimilation window. We outline how machine learning (ML) can help address these issues, proposing different avenues for future work that integrate ML and DA to reduce uncertainties in LSMs. We conclude by highlighting future priorities, including the need for international collaborations, to fully leverage the wealth of available Earth observation data sets, harness ML advances, and enhance the predictive capabilities of LSMs.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".