Articles | Volume 11, issue 8
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3131-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3131-2018
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
03 Aug 2018
Methods for assessment of models |  | 03 Aug 2018

Fast sensitivity analysis methods for computationally expensive models with multi-dimensional output

Edmund Ryan, Oliver Wild, Apostolos Voulgarakis, and Lindsay Lee

Related authors

Modeling soil CO2 production and transport with dynamic source and diffusion terms: testing the steady-state assumption using DETECT v1.0
Edmund M. Ryan, Kiona Ogle, Heather Kropp, Kimberly E. Samuels-Crow, Yolima Carrillo, and Elise Pendall
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1909–1928, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1909-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1909-2018, 2018
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
Architectural insights into and training methodology optimization of Pangu-Weather
Deifilia To, Julian Quinting, Gholam Ali Hoshyaripour, Markus Götz, Achim Streit, and Charlotte Debus
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8873–8884, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8873-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8873-2024, 2024
Short summary
Evaluation of global fire simulations in CMIP6 Earth system models
Fang Li, Xiang Song, Sandy P. Harrison, Jennifer R. Marlon, Zhongda Lin, L. Ruby Leung, Jörg Schwinger, Virginie Marécal, Shiyu Wang, Daniel S. Ward, Xiao Dong, Hanna Lee, Lars Nieradzik, Sam S. Rabin, and Roland Séférian
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8751–8771, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8751-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8751-2024, 2024
Short summary
Evaluating downscaled products with expected hydroclimatic co-variances
Seung H. Baek, Paul A. Ullrich, Bo Dong, and Jiwoo Lee
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8665–8681, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8665-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8665-2024, 2024
Short summary
Software sustainability of global impact models
Emmanuel Nyenah, Petra Döll, Daniel S. Katz, and Robert Reinecke
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8593–8611, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8593-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8593-2024, 2024
Short summary
fair-calibrate v1.4.1: calibration, constraining, and validation of the FaIR simple climate model for reliable future climate projections
Chris Smith, Donald P. Cummins, Hege-Beate Fredriksen, Zebedee Nicholls, Malte Meinshausen, Myles Allen, Stuart Jenkins, Nicholas Leach, Camilla Mathison, and Antti-Ilari Partanen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8569–8592, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Ahtikoski, A., Heikkilä, J., Alenius, V., and Siren, M.: Economic viability of utilizing biomass energy from young stands – the case of Finland, Biomass Bioenerg., 32, 988–996, 2008. 
Ba, S., Myers, W. R., and Brenneman, W. A.: Optimal sliced Latin hypercube designs, Technometrics, 57, 479–487, 2015. 
Bailis, R., Ezzati, M., and Kammen, D. M.: Mortality and greenhouse gas impacts of biomass and petroleum energy futures in Africa, Science, 308, 98–103, 2005. 
Bastos, L. S. and O'Hagan, A.: Diagnostics for Gaussian process emulators, Technometrics, 51, 425–438, 2009. 
Campbell, J. E., Carmichael, G. R., Chai, T., Mena-Carrasco, M., Tang, Y., Blake, D., Blake, N., Vay, S. A., Collatz, G. J., and Baker, I.: Photosynthetic control of atmospheric carbonyl sulfide during the growing season, Science, 322, 1085–1088, 2008. 
Download
Short summary
Global sensitivity analysis (GSA) identifies which parameters of a model most affect its output. We performed GSA using statistical emulators as surrogates of two slow-running atmospheric chemistry transport models. Due to the high dimension of the model outputs, we considered two alternative methods: one that reduced the output dimension and one that did not require an emulator. The alternative methods accurately performed the GSA but were significantly faster than the emulator-only method.