2018
DOI: 10.5194/gmd-2018-229
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Application of random forest regression to the calculation of gas-phase chemistry within the GEOS-Chem chemistry model v10

Abstract: Abstract. Atmospheric chemistry models are a central tool to study the impact of chemical constituents on the environment, vegetation and human health. These models are numerically intense, and previous attempts to reduce the numerical cost of chemistry solvers have not delivered transformative change. We show here the potential of a machine learning (in this case random forest regression) replacement for the gas-phase chemistry in atmospheric chemistry models. Our training data consists of one month (July 2… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
37
1
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
1
37
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…While the correlation and MSE summary statistics are very similar for both the DNN and Random Forest regression, the Random Forest prediction time is 27% slower than the DNN. Though the model prediction time is not perfectly optimized, these results are consistent with previous work demonstrating rapid computation from DNNs (Rasp et al, ), and slower implementations of Random Forests (Keller & Evans, ). Given the computational challenges many models already face, the lack of process‐based information currently available in models of V d , and the great potential for DNN model portability and retraining (Chollet & Allaire, ), we believe that the application of a DNN for this purpose is well justified.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…While the correlation and MSE summary statistics are very similar for both the DNN and Random Forest regression, the Random Forest prediction time is 27% slower than the DNN. Though the model prediction time is not perfectly optimized, these results are consistent with previous work demonstrating rapid computation from DNNs (Rasp et al, ), and slower implementations of Random Forests (Keller & Evans, ). Given the computational challenges many models already face, the lack of process‐based information currently available in models of V d , and the great potential for DNN model portability and retraining (Chollet & Allaire, ), we believe that the application of a DNN for this purpose is well justified.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Machine learning methods have gained popularity in recent years as high‐quality methods to make rapid and accurate predictions from data in the earth and environmental sciences. Keller and Evans () demonstrate the potential of using a Random Forest algorithm to replace gas phase chemistry in a global chemical transport model. Nowack et al () use a Ridge regression technique to linearly parameterize ozone‐temperature relationships for climate models and find that their machine learning model can predict global ozone fields quite well at a fraction of the computational cost of traditional nonparameterized methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the more interpretable end, machine learning algorithms are being used increasingly within environmental sciences, with recent examples including linear Ridge Regression and Random Forest models to replace computationally-expensive processes (Keller and Evans, 2018;Nowack et al, 2018) and Gaussian Process emulation to explore model biases on a global scale (Lee et al, 2011;Revell et al, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ensemble learning algorithms are a kind of machine learning that have been increasingly used in geoscientific applications (Catani et al, ; Keller & Evans, ; O'Gorman & Dwyer, ; Reichstein et al, ). The basic idea behind ensemble learning is to combine multiple weak learners for obtaining better predictions.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%