Emulating the Global Change Analysis Model with Deep Learning

Abigail Snyder; Andrew Holmes; Brenna Nieva; Brian Hutchinson; Claudia Tebaldi; Hidemi Mitani Shen; Logan Sizemore; Matt Jensen; Sarah Coffland; Seth Bassetti

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 19 references

Emulating the Global Change Analysis Model with Deep Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a four-layer neural network emulates the Global Change Analysis Model's 22,528 outputs at median R² 0.998, with sensitivity agreement at R² 0.812.

desk verdict Prediction emulator for GCAM is credible and useful; the sensitivity claim is over-sold, but the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08850 v1 pith:NQNXRSVY submitted 2024-12-12 econ.GN cs.LGcs.NEq-fin.EC

Andrew Holmes , Matt Jensen , Sarah Coffland , Hidemi Mitani Shen , Logan Sizemore , Seth Bassetti , Brenna Nieva , Claudia Tebaldi

show 2 more authors

Abigail Snyder Brian Hutchinson

This is my paper · ORCID

classification econ.GNcs.LGcs.NEq-fin.EC

keywords GCAMemulationdeeplearningsurrogateintegratedassessmentmodelsensitivityanalysisDGSMscenariodiscoveryrenewableenergyLatinhypercubesampling

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to show that a deep learning emulator can stand in for the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM), a complex multisector model of coupled human and Earth systems, when exploring large scenario ensembles. The authors train a feedforward neural network on an existing GCAM ensemble, extended with interpolated input values, to predict 22,528 outputs spanning energy, land, water, sectors, regions, and time. On a held-out interpolated test set, the emulator achieves a median R² of 0.998, and its derivative-based sensitivity profile agrees with GCAM's at an R² of 0.812. If these results hold, the emulator could make large ensemble exploration and gradient-based scenario discovery practical, since it runs orders of magnitude faster than GCAM and is differentiable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the emulator itself: a four-layer, fully connected neural network with 256 ReLU hidden units per layer and a 22,528-unit output layer, trained by minimizing mean squared error on z-score normalized GCAM outputs. Its differentiability allows derivative-based global sensitivity measures to be computed directly, which the paper uses to compare the emulator's input-output sensitivities with those of GCAM obtained by finite differences.

What would settle it

Train the emulator on a Latin hypercube ensemble and then test it on an independently generated GCAM ensemble using a different sampling scheme (e.g., random Monte Carlo) or extrapolated input ranges; if the median prediction R² falls substantially below 0.998 or the DGSM sensitivity R² drops far below 0.812, the claim of high-fidelity emulation would not generalize beyond the original training distribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a four-layer, fully connected neural network with 256 hidden units per layer and a 22,528-unit output layer is a high-fidelity and computationally efficient emulator of GCAM. The paper reports a median R² of 0.998 between emulator and GCAM predictions on a held-out test set of interpolated scenarios, and an R² of 0.812 between emulator and GCAM derivative-based global sensitivity measures. The authors interpret these results as confirmation that the emulator captures both the outputs and the input-output sensitivities of the full model, making it a reliable surrogate for exploratory scenario analysis and for steering future GCAM ensembles.

Load-bearing premise

The emulator's input-output sensitivities are treated as faithful to GCAM's true response derivatives even though the network is trained only on output values, with the direct sensitivity comparison reaching R² 0.812 rather than near-perfect agreement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Once trained, the emulator predicts outcomes for novel scenarios at least three orders of magnitude faster than running GCAM, enabling large ensemble experiments at much lower computational cost.
Because the emulator is differentiable, it supports efficient gradient-based search over input space for scenario discovery, such as finding input combinations that minimize water scarcity.
Relaxing nine of the twelve input variables from binary to continuous values lets the emulator explore intermediate scenarios that the original binary ensemble could not represent.
At region, year, and quantity aggregation levels, sensitivity agreement with GCAM is very high (R² 0.989–0.995), so the emulator can identify the main drivers of outputs at those resolutions.
The approach opens the door to emulator-in-the-loop generation of future GCAM ensembles, where machine learning guides which scenarios to run next.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

We infer that the overall sensitivity R² of 0.812, while described as good, implies that fine-grained gradient-based scenario discovery over individual input-output pairs may need careful validation, since the network was not trained with derivative supervision.
A natural testable extension is to train the same architecture on a different GCAM ensemble with broader input ranges or more sectors; the architecture itself is generic and should transfer.
The interpolation trick for binary GCAM inputs could likely be applied to other categorical parameters in multisector models, but the absence of a well-defined intermediate for three inputs suggests a boundary on where this relaxation works.
We infer that the 0.998 median R² is measured on an interpolated test set drawn from the same Latin hypercube design; performance on truly out-of-distribution scenarios, such as extrapolation beyond the high and low input extremes, remains an open question.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the prediction half of this paper is credible and useful; the sensitivity half is weaker than the abstract implies, but the paper is still worth a serious look.

What's new: Holmes et al. take the binary input ensemble from Woodard et al. (2023), relax nine of the twelve inputs to continuous via linear interpolation, run thousands of new GCAM simulations, and train a plain four-layer MLP to predict 22,528 outputs across regions, years, and sectors. Median prediction R^2 is 0.998 on a held-out interpolated test set. That's a solid result. The interpolation extension is genuinely useful: the original binary design forced scenarios to extremes, and this work lets you probe intermediate values. The sensitivity evaluation is also a real effort: they generate a separate 4,000-sample DGSM dataset and compare the emulator's derivative-based sensitivities to GCAM's on data the emulator never saw. That's a genuine transfer test, not just a train/test split.

Soft spots. The headline sensitivity agreement is an overall R^2 of 0.812. That's moderate, not 'good agreement' as the text claims. The regional/year/quantity breakdowns (0.989-0.995) are computed after averaging sensitivities over the other dimensions, which suppresses per-entry errors. If you're using the emulator to steer a gradient-based search over all 22,528 outputs, it's the per-entry derivatives that matter, and those aren't shown. Since the network is trained only on output values, high prediction R^2 does not constrain the learned gradients; a network can fit outputs while getting local slopes wrong. So the conclusion that the emulator's 'sensitivities are consistent with GCAM's' goes beyond what 0.812 demonstrates, especially for the future emulator-in-the-loop scenario search they propose.

Two smaller issues. The 'faster by three orders of magnitude' claim in the introduction isn't backed by a runtime comparison. And there's no code or data release, which limits verification. The methods section is clear enough to reproduce, but the lack of artifacts is a real obstacle. The citation pattern is fine: W2023, Takakura, Xiong, and Sobol are the right anchors, and the novelty is modest but accurately situated.

Who this is for: anyone working on emulation of integrated assessment models, and GCAM users who want fast, differentiable approximations for ensemble exploration. The prediction result is likely sound; the sensitivity gap is a caution, not a fatal flaw. A serious referee should engage, mainly to push for per-output derivative diagnostics and a tempering of the sensitivity conclusion.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a deep-learning emulator for the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM). Twelve GCAM inputs are used, nine of which are relaxed from binary high/low values to linearly interpolated continuous values, with the remaining three kept binary. A four-layer fully connected neural network maps these 12 inputs to 22,528 outputs covering 44 quantities, 32 regions, and 16 time steps. The model is trained on 4,096 Latin-hypercube GCAM runs and evaluated on a held-out interpolated test set, achieving a median R2 of 0.998. A separate 4,000-run finite-difference (DGSM) dataset is used to compare emulator and GCAM derivative-based sensitivities, with an overall R2 of 0.812 and coarser region/year/quantity breakdowns around 0.99. The paper concludes that the emulator is high-fidelity, faster than GCAM by at least three orders of magnitude, and that its input-output sensitivities are consistent with GCAM's.

Significance. The emulator is a useful proof of concept for replacing expensive multisector model runs with a differentiable surrogate, and it has several genuine strengths. The setup is a supervised emulation task rather than a circular derivation, the DGSM dataset provides an independent transfer test generated from input configurations not used in training, and the output dimension of 22,528 is nontrivial. The interpolated-input augmentation of the existing binary ensemble is also a reasonable enrichment strategy. If the gradient-fidelity issue can be quantified and improved, the emulator would support ensemble exploration and gradient-based scenario discovery. At present, however, the paper demonstrates strong predictive accuracy on held-out outputs but only partial, aggregate evidence for derivative fidelity; the sensitivity claim is load-bearing for the proposed downstream use.

major comments (4)

[Section 3, Table 1] The conclusion in Section 4 that the emulator's sensitivities "are consistent with GCAM's" is not supported by the reported Overall Sensitivity R2 of 0.812. This scalar is computed across the full 12 x 22,528 S^sigma matrix, so it can be dominated by a small number of high-magnitude entries while many individual input-output derivatives are inaccurate. The Region/Year/Quantity breakdowns, which average over subsets of outputs, suppress per-entry errors by construction and do not evaluate derivative fidelity at the resolution needed for scenario search. Please report the distribution of per-output or per-entry sensitivity errors, for example quantiles of R2 or normalized error over the 22,528 outputs, and identify which derivatives the proposed gradient-based search would actually use. This is especially important because the network is trained only on output values (Section 2.2), so high predictive R2 does not by itself constrain the learned gradients.
[Table 1, Section 3] The prediction evaluation reports only the median R2 over the 22,528 output values (0.998). The central claim of "high-fidelity" should be accompanied by the dispersion of per-output R2, particularly the minimum and lower quantiles, because a median of 0.998 can hide a subset of poorly predicted quantities, regions, or time steps. Please include the worst-case outputs and a histogram or quantile summary of the per-output R2 values.
[Section 1] The paper asserts that predicting outcomes for novel scenarios is "faster than GCAM by at least three orders of magnitude," but no runtime measurement or benchmark appears in Sections 2 or 3. Since computational efficiency is one of the two defining contributions stated in the introduction, please add a concrete timing comparison (for example wall-clock time per scenario for GCAM versus emulator inference, including any preprocessing) or qualify the claim to match the evidence actually provided.
[Section 2.1] The continuous relaxation assumes that linearly interpolating the XML input files between the expert-defined high and low values produces valid intermediate GCAM scenarios. GCAM is nonlinear, and no validation is provided that the interpolated configurations produce outputs that lie in a meaningful range or behave sensibly. If this assumption fails, the enriched dataset and the emulator trained on it may contain interpolation artifacts rather than genuine intermediate scenarios. Please provide a justification or a validation test for this interpolation assumption.

minor comments (6)

[Section 2.2] Typo: "nueral network" should be "neural network," and "linear rectified unit (ReLU) hidden activation function" should be "rectified linear unit (ReLU) activation function."
[Section 2.1] The phrase "randomly sampled randomly uniformly" is redundant and should be "sampled uniformly at random," and "presence of absence" should be "presence or absence."
[Figure 2] The label "T aiwan" in Figure 2 contains a spurious space and should be "Taiwan."
[Table 3] Table 3 appears to contain duplicate rows: energy demand_fuel building and industry appear twice, and energy price transport appears twice. If these are intentional distinct outputs, please clarify; if they are typographical duplicates, please correct the table. The figure labels suggest distinct biomass and fossil-fuel demand quantities, so the table may be missing fuel-type distinctions.
[Section 3, Table 1] The acronym "DGSM" is spelled "DGMS" in the Table 1 caption and surrounding text; please use one consistent spelling.
[References] The reference list is inconsistent: reference [3] is incomplete (the journal name and pagination are missing in the printed text), the duplicate affiliation line on the title page should be removed, and several bibliographic entries need volume/page or publisher details.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the emulator is a supervised fit to GCAM outputs, evaluated on held-out GCAM data and an independent sensitivity dataset.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than deductive: a neural network is trained on GCAM input-output pairs and then evaluated on a held-out interpolated test set, so the reported median prediction R2 of 0.998 is an out-of-sample measure rather than a fitted value. The sensitivity comparison is likewise a genuine transfer test: the DGSM dataset was generated with a finite-diff sampling strategy, was not used for training or tuning, and the network was trained only on output values, so any agreement between its derivatives and GCAM's DGSM sensitivities is not forced by construction. The reference to Woodard et al. (W2023) supplies the input ensemble and problem framing, but the emulator's predictive and sensitivity claims are independently evaluated against GCAM outputs. The notable limitation that the aggregate sensitivity R2 of 0.812 may be dominated by high-magnitude entries is an accuracy concern, not a circularity concern. No equation in the paper reduces to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing result rests on a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumptions above: the interpolation scheme defines the input distribution, GCAM serves as ground truth, the selected variables are sufficient, and the neural network architecture is adequate. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

Neural network hyperparameters = 4 layers x 256 units; learning rate 0.001; 500 epochs
Chosen via Bayesian hyperparameter search on validation set (Section 2.2); not derived from theory and affects all results.
Z-score normalization statistics (mean and std per quantity-region-year) = computed from training set
Used to standardize outputs; fitted to training data, though standard practice.

assumptions (4)

ad hoc to paper Linear interpolation between binary high and low input values yields valid intermediate GCAM scenarios.
Section 2.1 states nine inputs are relaxed from {0,1} to [0,1] via linear interpolation. This assumes the model responds smoothly and that intermediate values are physically meaningful.
domain assumption GCAM's finite-difference sensitivities provide the correct ground truth for input-output relationships.
Section 3 computes DGSM for both GCAM and emulator and uses R^2 as agreement metric; this assumes GCAM is the reference and finite-difference estimates are accurate.
domain assumption The 12 inputs and 44 output quantities are representative of GCAM's behavior relevant to wind and solar transitions.
Tables 2 and 3 define the selected inputs and outputs; if these omit important drivers, the emulator's fidelity is limited.
standard math A feedforward ReLU network can approximate the GCAM input-output mapping given the training data.
Universal approximation theorems support this, but require sufficient data and smoothness; the paper does not verify convergence or capacity.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emulating the Global Change Analysis Model with Deep Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NQNXRSVY

@misc{pith2026241208850,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emulating the Global Change Analysis Model with Deep Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NQNXRSVY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08850}
}

abstract

The Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM) simulates complex interactions between the coupled Earth and human systems, providing valuable insights into the co-evolution of land, water, and energy sectors under different future scenarios. Understanding the sensitivities and drivers of this multisectoral system can lead to more robust understanding of the different pathways to particular outcomes. The interactions and complexity of the coupled human-Earth systems make GCAM simulations costly to run at scale - a requirement for large ensemble experiments which explore uncertainty in model parameters and outputs. A differentiable emulator with similar predictive power, but greater efficiency, could provide novel scenario discovery and analysis of GCAM and its outputs, requiring fewer runs of GCAM. As a first use case, we train a neural network on an existing large ensemble that explores a range of GCAM inputs related to different relative contributions of energy production sources, with a focus on wind and solar. We complement this existing ensemble with interpolated input values and a wider selection of outputs, predicting 22,528 GCAM outputs across time, sectors, and regions. We report a median $R^2$ score of 0.998 for the emulator's predictions and an $R^2$ score of 0.812 for its input-output sensitivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08850 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** GCAM (left) vs. Emulator (right) local sensitivities of inputs vs Years (Top), Quantities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Experiment tracking with weights and biases, 2020

Lukas Biewald. Experiment tracking with weights and biases, 2020. Software available from wandb.com

2020
[2]

Ben Bond-Lamberty, Kalyn Dorheim, Ryna Cui, Russell Horowitz, Abigail Snyder, Katherine Calvin, Leyang Feng, Rachel Hoesly, Jill Horing, G. Page Kyle, Robert Link, Pralit Patel, Christopher Roney, Aaron Staniszewski, Sean Turner, Min Chen, Felip Feijoo, Corinne Hartin, Mohamad Hejazi, Gokul Iyer, Sonny Kim, Yaling Liu, Cary Lynch, Haewon McJeon, Steven Sm...

work page 2019
[3]

Smith, Abigail Snyder, Stephanie Waldhoff, and Marshall Wise

Katherine Calvin, Pralit Patel, Leon Clarke, Ghassem Asrar, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Ryna Yiyun Cui, Alan Di Vittorio, Kalyn Dorheim, Jae Edmonds, Corinne Hartin, Mohamad Hejazi, Russell Horowitz, Gokul Iyer, Page Kyle, Sonny Kim, Robert Link, Haewon McJeon, Steven J. Smith, Abigail Snyder, Stephanie Waldhoff, and Marshall Wise. GCAM v5.1: Representing the link...

work page 2019
[4]

Narayan, Alan V

Flannery Dolan, Jonathan Lamontagne, Katherine Calvin, Abigail Snyder, Kanishka B. Narayan, Alan V . Di Vittorio, and Chris R. Vernon. Modeling the Economic and Environmental Impacts of Land Scarcity Under Deep Uncertainty. Earth’s Future, 10(2):e2021EF002466, February 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Evaluating the economic impact of water scarcity in a changing world

Flannery Dolan, Jonathan Lamontagne, Robert Link, Mohamad Hejazi, Patrick Reed, and Jae Edmonds. Evaluating the economic impact of water scarcity in a changing world. Nature Communications, 12(1):1915, March 2021

work page 1915
[6]

Visual Feature Extraction by a Multilayered Network of Analog Threshold Elements

Kunihiko Fukushima. Visual Feature Extraction by a Multilayered Network of Analog Threshold Elements. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics, 5(4):322–333, 1969

work page 1969
[7]

Deep Learning

Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. Deep Learning. MIT Press, 2016

2016
[8]

SALib: An open-source python library for sensitivity analysis

Jon Herman and Will Usher. SALib: An open-source python library for sensitivity analysis. The Journal of Open Source Software, 2(9), jan 2017

work page 2017

Show all 19 references

[9]

Toward SALib 2.0: Advancing the accessibility and interpretability of global sensitivity analyses

Takuya Iwanaga, William Usher, and Jonathan Herman. Toward SALib 2.0: Advancing the accessibility and interpretability of global sensitivity analyses. Socio-Environmental Systems Modelling, 4:18155, May 2022

2022
[10]

Compounding uncertainties in economic and population growth increase tail risks for relevant outcomes across sectors

Franklyn Kanyako, Jonathan Lamontagne, Abigail Snyder, Jennifer Morris, Gokul Iyer, Flannery Dolan, Yang Ou, and Kenneth Cox. Compounding uncertainties in economic and population growth increase tail risks for relevant outcomes across sectors. Earth’s Future, 2023

2023
[11]

Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization

Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization. 2017

2017
[12]

M. D. McKay, R. J. Beckman, and W. J. Conover. A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code. Technometrics, 21(2):239, May 1979

1979
[13]

Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer

Andrea Saltelli, Marco Ratto, Terry Andres, Francesca Campolongo, Jessica Cariboni, Debora Gatelli, Michaela Saisana, and Stefano Tarantola. Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer . Wiley-Interscience, Chichester, England, 2008

2008
[14]

Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms

Jasper Snoek, Hugo Larochelle, and Ryan P Adams. Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms. 2012

2012
[15]

Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates

I.M Sobol′. Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 55(1-3):271–280, February 2001

2001
[16]

Sobol’ and S

I.M. Sobol’ and S. Kucherenko. Derivative based global sensitivity measures and their link with global sensitivity indices. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 79(10):3009–3017, June 2009

2009
[17]

Reproducing complex simulations of economic impacts of climate change with lower-cost emulators

Jun’ya Takakura, Shinichiro Fujimori, Kiyoshi Takahashi, Naota Hanasaki, Tomoko Hasegawa, Yukiko Hirabayashi, Yasushi Honda, Toshichika Iizumi, Chan Park, Makoto Tamura, and Yasuaki Hijioka. Reproducing complex simulations of economic impacts of climate change with lower-cost ...

2021
[18]

Woodard, Abigail Snyder, Jonathan R

Dawn L. Woodard, Abigail Snyder, Jonathan R. Lamontagne, Claudia Tebaldi, Jennifer Morris, Katherine V . Calvin, Matthew Binsted, and Pralit Patel. Scenario Discovery Analysis of Drivers of Solar and Wind Energy Transitions Through 2050. Earth’s Future, 11(8):e2022EF003442, Au...

2023
[19]

Weiwei Xiong, Katsumasa Tanaka, Philippe Ciais, Daniel J. A. Johansson, and Mariliis Lehtveer. emIAM v1.0: An emulator for Integrated Assessment Models using marginal abatement cost curves. Preprint, Integrated assessment modeling, March 2023. 6 Table 2: Inputs varied for each...

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Experiment tracking with weights and biases, 2020

Lukas Biewald. Experiment tracking with weights and biases, 2020. Software available from wandb.com

2020

[2] [2]

Ben Bond-Lamberty, Kalyn Dorheim, Ryna Cui, Russell Horowitz, Abigail Snyder, Katherine Calvin, Leyang Feng, Rachel Hoesly, Jill Horing, G. Page Kyle, Robert Link, Pralit Patel, Christopher Roney, Aaron Staniszewski, Sean Turner, Min Chen, Felip Feijoo, Corinne Hartin, Mohamad Hejazi, Gokul Iyer, Sonny Kim, Yaling Liu, Cary Lynch, Haewon McJeon, Steven Sm...

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Smith, Abigail Snyder, Stephanie Waldhoff, and Marshall Wise

Katherine Calvin, Pralit Patel, Leon Clarke, Ghassem Asrar, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Ryna Yiyun Cui, Alan Di Vittorio, Kalyn Dorheim, Jae Edmonds, Corinne Hartin, Mohamad Hejazi, Russell Horowitz, Gokul Iyer, Page Kyle, Sonny Kim, Robert Link, Haewon McJeon, Steven J. Smith, Abigail Snyder, Stephanie Waldhoff, and Marshall Wise. GCAM v5.1: Representing the link...

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Narayan, Alan V

Flannery Dolan, Jonathan Lamontagne, Katherine Calvin, Abigail Snyder, Kanishka B. Narayan, Alan V . Di Vittorio, and Chris R. Vernon. Modeling the Economic and Environmental Impacts of Land Scarcity Under Deep Uncertainty. Earth’s Future, 10(2):e2021EF002466, February 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Evaluating the economic impact of water scarcity in a changing world

Flannery Dolan, Jonathan Lamontagne, Robert Link, Mohamad Hejazi, Patrick Reed, and Jae Edmonds. Evaluating the economic impact of water scarcity in a changing world. Nature Communications, 12(1):1915, March 2021

work page 1915

[6] [6]

Visual Feature Extraction by a Multilayered Network of Analog Threshold Elements

Kunihiko Fukushima. Visual Feature Extraction by a Multilayered Network of Analog Threshold Elements. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics, 5(4):322–333, 1969

work page 1969

[7] [7]

Deep Learning

Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. Deep Learning. MIT Press, 2016

2016

[8] [8]

SALib: An open-source python library for sensitivity analysis

Jon Herman and Will Usher. SALib: An open-source python library for sensitivity analysis. The Journal of Open Source Software, 2(9), jan 2017

work page 2017