Articles | Volume 16, issue 24
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7375-2023
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7375-2023
Review and perspective paper
 | 
19 Dec 2023
Review and perspective paper |  | 19 Dec 2023

Perspectives of physics-based machine learning strategies for geoscientific applications governed by partial differential equations

Denise Degen, Daniel Caviedes Voullième, Susanne Buiter, Harrie-Jan Hendricks Franssen, Harry Vereecken, Ana González-Nicolás, and Florian Wellmann

Related authors

About the Trustworthiness of Physics-Based Machine Learning – A Considerations for Geomechanical Applications
Denise Degen, Moritz Ziegler, Oliver Heidbach, Andreas Henk, Karsten Reiter, and Florian Wellmann
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2932,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2932, 2024
Short summary
How biased are our models? – a case study of the alpine region
Denise Degen, Cameron Spooner, Magdalena Scheck-Wenderoth, and Mauro Cacace
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7133–7153, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7133-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7133-2021, 2021
Short summary
Effects of transient processes for thermal simulations of the Central European Basin
Denise Degen and Mauro Cacace
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1699–1719, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1699-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1699-2021, 2021
Short summary

Related subject area

Numerical methods
Hydro-geomorphological modelling of leaky wooden dam efficacy from reach to catchment scale with CAESAR-Lisflood 1.9j
Joshua M. Wolstenholme, Christopher J. Skinner, David Milan, Robert E. Thomas, and Daniel R. Parsons
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1395–1411, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1395-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1395-2025, 2025
Short summary
Enhancing single precision with quasi-double precision: achieving double-precision accuracy in the Model for Prediction Across Scales – Atmosphere (MPAS-A) version 8.2.1
Jiayi Lai, Lanning Wang, Qizhong Wu, Yizhou Yang, and Fang Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1089–1102, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1089-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1089-2025, 2025
Short summary
Advances in land surface forecasting: a comparison of LSTM, gradient boosting, and feed-forward neural networks as prognostic state emulators in a case study with ecLand
Marieke Wesselkamp, Matthew Chantry, Ewan Pinnington, Margarita Choulga, Souhail Boussetta, Maria Kalweit, Joschka Bödecker, Carsten F. Dormann, Florian Pappenberger, and Gianpaolo Balsamo
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 921–937, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-921-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-921-2025, 2025
Short summary
Subgrid corrections for the linear inertial equations of a compound flood model – a case study using SFINCS 2.1.1 Dollerup release
Maarten van Ormondt, Tim Leijnse, Roel de Goede, Kees Nederhoff, and Ap van Dongeren
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 843–861, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-843-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-843-2025, 2025
Short summary
Introducing Iterative Model Calibration (IMC) v1.0: a generalizable framework for numerical model calibration with a CAESAR-Lisflood case study
Chayan Banerjee, Kien Nguyen, Clinton Fookes, Gregory Hancock, and Thomas Coulthard
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 803–818, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-803-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-803-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Abdi, D. S., Wilcox, L. C., Warburton, T. C., and Giraldo, F. X.: A GPU-accelerated continuous and discontinuous Galerkin non-hydrostatic atmospheric model, Int. J. High Perform. C., 33, 81–109, https://doi.org/10.1177/1094342017694427, 2017. a
Adams, B., Bohnhoff, W., Dalbey, K., Ebeida, M., Eddy, J., Eldred, M., Hooper, R., Hough, P., Hu, K., Jakeman, J., Khalil, M., Maupin, K., Monschke, J., Ridgway, E., Rushdi, A., Seidl, D., Stephens, J., Swiler, L., and Winokur, J.: DAKOTA, A Multilevel Parallel Object-Oriented Framework for Design Optimization, Parameter Estimation, Uncertainty Quantification, and Sensitivity Analysis: Version 6.12 User's Manual, Sandia National Laboratories, Tech. Rep., SAND2020-12495, 2020. a, b, c
Afanasyev, A., Bianco, M., Mosimann, L., Osuna, C., Thaler, F., Vogt, H., Fuhrer, O., VandeVondele, J., and Schulthess, T. C.: GridTools: A framework for portable weather and climate applications, Software X, 15, 100707, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2021.100707, 2021. a
Alexander, F., Almgren, A., Bell, J., Bhattacharjee, A., Chen, J., Colella, P., Daniel, D., DeSlippe, J., Diachin, L., Draeger, E., Dubey, A., Dunning, T., Evans, T., Foster, I., Francois, M., Germann, T., Gordon, M., Habib, S., Halappanavar, M., Hamilton, S., Hart, W., Huang, Z. H., Hungerford, A., Kasen, D., Kent, P. R. C., Kolev, T., Kothe, D. B., Kronfeld, A., Luo, Y., Mackenzie, P., McCallen, D., Messer, B., Mniszewski, S., Oehmen, C., Perazzo, A., Perez, D., Richards, D., Rider, W. J., Rieben, R., Roche, K., Siegel, A., Sprague, M., Steefel, C., Stevens, R., Syamlal, M., Taylor, M., Turner, J., Vay, J.-L., Voter, A. F., Windus, T. L., and Yelick, K.: Exascale applications: skin in the game, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A, 378, 20190056, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0056, 2020. a, b
Download
Executive editor
This manuscript provides a review of physics-based machine learning methods, and provides a perspective on their use.
Short summary
In geosciences, we often use simulations based on physical laws. These simulations can be computationally expensive, which is a problem if simulations must be performed many times (e.g., to add error bounds). We show how a novel machine learning method helps to reduce simulation time. In comparison to other approaches, which typically only look at the output of a simulation, the method considers physical laws in the simulation itself. The method provides reliable results faster than standard.
Share