pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.03289 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-26 · ⚛️ physics.ao-ph · cs.AI· physics.data-an

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Toward Artificial Intelligence Enabled Earth System Coupling

Maria Kaselimi , Anna Belehaki
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 00:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.ao-ph cs.AIphysics.data-an
keywords earth system couplingartificial intelligencemulti-component modelsclimate modelingcross-domain interactionsphysical consistencyinterpretabilityunified frameworks
0
0 comments X

The pith

State-of-the-art AI techniques can strengthen cross-domain interactions in Earth system models to support more coherent multi-component representations.

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

This review examines how artificial intelligence methods can enhance the coupling of interconnected processes in the Earth system. It focuses on overcoming limitations in traditional multi-component models by improving integration across physical, chemical, and biological domains. A reader would care because better coupling could lead to more accurate and unified modeling of climate and environmental systems. The paper outlines emerging opportunities for AI to improve physical consistency and interpretability without surveying all modeling efforts broadly.

Core claim

The central claim is that emerging AI methods create new opportunities to enhance Earth system coupling and address long-standing limitations in multi-component models, strengthening cross-domain interactions, supporting coherent representations, and enabling progress toward unified frameworks while outlining pathways for physical consistency and interpretability.

What carries the argument

AI techniques for strengthening cross-domain interactions and enabling coherent multi-component representations in Earth system models.

If this is right

  • AI can address limitations in multi-component models while maintaining physical consistency.
  • More coherent representations of interacting Earth spheres become possible.
  • Progress toward unified Earth system frameworks is enabled.
  • Applications extend to any modeling system where Earth spheres interact.
  • Pathways for improved integration across domains are provided.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • AI-enhanced coupling might integrate real-time observational data more effectively.
  • Hybrid models combining physics and AI could become standard for prediction.
  • Testing in specific domains like ocean-atmosphere interactions could validate the approach.
  • Interpretability challenges may require new AI methods tailored to physical constraints.

Load-bearing premise

That emerging AI methods will successfully address long-standing limitations while maintaining physical consistency and interpretability.

What would settle it

A demonstration that AI-coupled models fail to preserve known physical laws in a multi-sphere interaction simulation would falsify the central claim.

read the original abstract

Coupling constitutes a foundational mechanism in the Earth system, regulating the interconnected physical, chemical, and biological processes that link its spheres. This review examines how emerging artificial intelligence (AI) methods create new opportunities to enhance Earth system coupling and address long-standing limitations in multi-component models. Rather than surveying next-generation modelling efforts broadly, we focus specifically on how state-of-the-art AI techniques can strengthen cross-domain interactions, support more coherent multi-component representations, and enable progress toward unified Earth system frameworks. The scope extends beyond climate models to include any modelling system in which Earth spheres interact. We outline emerging opportunities, persistent limitations, and conceptual pathways through which AI may enhance physical consistency, interpretability, and integration across domains. In doing so, this review provides a structured foundation for understanding the role of AI in advancing coupled Earth system modelling.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This review paper surveys how emerging AI methods can enhance coupling across Earth system components (atmosphere, ocean, land, etc.). It claims that state-of-the-art AI techniques can strengthen cross-domain interactions, enable more coherent multi-component representations, and support progress toward unified Earth system frameworks, while outlining opportunities, persistent limitations, and conceptual pathways for improving physical consistency, interpretability, and integration. The scope covers any modeling system with interacting Earth spheres rather than climate models alone, and the manuscript draws on existing literature without presenting new data, derivations, or empirical tests.

Significance. If the conceptual pathways hold, the review provides a structured synthesis of opportunities for AI in coupled Earth system modeling that could guide future research directions. It explicitly addresses long-standing challenges such as maintaining physical consistency and interpretability when integrating AI across domains, which are central to advancing beyond current multi-component limitations. The paper's focus on opportunity rather than new results positions it as a foundation for the field rather than a definitive demonstration.

major comments (2)
  1. [Pathways for AI-enhanced coupling] The central claim that AI can 'address long-standing limitations in multi-component models' while preserving physical consistency rests on high-level literature synthesis but lacks specific, cited case studies or quantitative benchmarks in the pathways section showing successful AI coupling that outperforms traditional methods on consistency metrics.
  2. [Persistent limitations] The weakest assumption—that emerging AI methods will successfully maintain interpretability and physical consistency—is stated without concrete tests or counter-examples from the surveyed literature; this makes the assessment of 'persistent limitations' difficult to evaluate as load-bearing for the opportunity narrative.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and introduction use overlapping phrasing when describing 'cross-domain interactions' and 'multi-component representations'; tightening this would improve clarity without altering the scope.
  2. [Opportunities] Several opportunity statements cite 'state-of-the-art AI techniques' generically; adding one or two representative references per technique (e.g., physics-informed neural networks or graph neural networks for coupling) would strengthen the literature grounding.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and recommendation for minor revision. We address each major comment below and will incorporate targeted enhancements to the pathways and limitations sections in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Pathways for AI-enhanced coupling] The central claim that AI can 'address long-standing limitations in multi-component models' while preserving physical consistency rests on high-level literature synthesis but lacks specific, cited case studies or quantitative benchmarks in the pathways section showing successful AI coupling that outperforms traditional methods on consistency metrics.

    Authors: We agree that the pathways section would be strengthened by greater specificity. In the revision we will add explicit citations to case studies from the surveyed literature that report quantitative benchmarks (e.g., reduced bias in flux exchanges or improved conservation properties) where AI-based coupling has outperformed traditional parameterizations or nudging schemes on physical-consistency metrics. These additions will remain within the scope of a review and will not introduce new empirical results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Persistent limitations] The weakest assumption—that emerging AI methods will successfully maintain interpretability and physical consistency—is stated without concrete tests or counter-examples from the surveyed literature; this makes the assessment of 'persistent limitations' difficult to evaluate as load-bearing for the opportunity narrative.

    Authors: We accept the point. The revised text will include concrete references to both successful demonstrations and documented failures or limitations drawn from the existing literature (e.g., studies reporting loss of physical invariants or reduced interpretability in hybrid AI–physics models). This will allow readers to evaluate the load-bearing nature of the limitations discussion more directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper is a high-level review surveying literature on AI opportunities for Earth system coupling. It advances no derivations, equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or formal results that could reduce to inputs by construction. Claims rest on external citations and conceptual discussion without self-referential load-bearing steps or ansatz smuggling. The central thesis is opportunity-based rather than a closed derivation chain, making the analysis self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a review paper with no new mathematical derivations or empirical claims, so it introduces no free parameters, axioms beyond standard domain knowledge in Earth system science and AI, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5433 in / 931 out tokens · 31931 ms · 2026-05-15T00:59:52.063094+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 107 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Geoscientific Model Development 14(3), 1015–1038 (2021) https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1015-2021

    Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G.A., Senior, C.A., Stevens, B., Stouffer , R.J., Taylor, K.E.: Overview of the coupled model intercomparison projec t phase 6 (cmip6) experimental design and organization. Geoscientific Model Development 14(3), 1015–1038 (2021) https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1015-2021

    work page doi:10.5194/gmd-14-1015-2021 2021

  2. [2]

    Earth-Science Reviews 260, 104986 (2025)

    Pan, X., Chen, D., Pan, B., Huang, X., Yang, K., Piao, S., Zhou, T., Da i, Y., Chen, F., Li, X.: Evolution and prospects of earth system models: Ch allenges and opportunities. Earth-Science Reviews 260, 104986 (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Geoscientific Model Development 4, 677–699 (2011) https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-677-2011

    Best, M.J., Pryor, M., Clark, D.B., Rooney, G.G., Essery, R.L.H., M´ en ard, C.B., Edwards, J.M., Hendry, M.A., Porson, A., Gedney, N., Mercado, L .M., Sitch, S., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Cox, P.M., Grimmond, C.S.B., Harding, R .J.: The joint uk land environment simulator (jules), model description – part 1: Energy and water fluxes. Geoscientific Model Devel...

    work page doi:10.5194/gmd-4-677-2011 2011

  4. [4]

    Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 98(3), 589–602 (2017)

    Hourdin, F., Mauritsen, T., Gettelman, A., Golaz, J.-C., Balaji, V., Du an, Q., Folini, D., Ji, D., Klocke, D., Qian, Y.: The art and science of climate model tuning. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 98(3), 589–602 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Journal of Scien tific Computing 84(3), 44 (2020)

    Zhang, H., Liu, Z., Constantinescu, E., Jacob, R.: Stability analysis of inter- face conditions for ocean–atmosphere coupling. Journal of Scien tific Computing 84(3), 44 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 98(7), 169–172 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0066.1 21

    Penny, S.G., Akella, S., al.: Coupled data assimilation for integrated e arth system analysis and prediction: goals, challenges and recommendat ions. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 98(7), 169–172 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0066.1 21

    work page doi:10.1175/bams-d-17-0066.1 2017

  7. [7]

    Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 9(5), 535 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.535

    Carrassi, A., Bocquet, M., Bertino, L., Evensen, G.: Data assimila- tion in the geosciences: An overview of methods, issues, and persp ec- tives. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 9(5), 535 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.535

    work page doi:10.1002/wcc.535 2018

  8. [8]

    a rXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02732 (2024)

    Szwarcman, D., Gupta, R., Bhowmik, A., et al.: Prithvi-eo-2.0: A ver satile multi- temporal foundation model for earth observation applications. a rXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02732 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv :2506.06281 (2025)

    Danish, M.S., Rathore, A., Jain, S., et al.: Terrafm: A scalable found ation model for unified multi-resolution earth observation. arXiv preprint arXiv :2506.06281 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.1117 1 (2025)

    Jakubik, J., Yang, F., Blumenstiel, B., et al.: Terramind: Large-sc ale generative multimodality for earth observation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.1117 1 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning

    Nguyen, T.A., Azizzadenesheli, K., Lu, Y., Anandkumar, A.: Climax: A foun- dation model for weather and climate. In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, vol. 202, pp. 25813–2583 3 (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10343

    work page arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13063 (2025)

    Bodnar, C., Momeni, A., Bevilacqua, R., et al.: Aurora: A foundatio n model of the earth system. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13063 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01465 (2024 )

    Lang, S., Alexe, M., Chantry, M., Dramsch, J., Pinault, F., Raoult, B., Clare, M.C., Lessig, C., Maier-Gerber, M., Magnusson, L., et al.: Aifs–ecmwf’s data- driven forecasting system. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01465 (2024 )

    work page arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08450 (2024)

    Wang, Z., Zhang, H., Zhang, X., et al.: Orbit: A foundation model f or weather and climate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08450 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    npj Climate and Atmospheric Science 8(1), 99 (2025)

    Bordoni, S., Kang, S., Shaw, T.A., Simpson, I., Zanna, L.: The futu res of climate modeling. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science 8(1), 99 (2025)

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    IE EE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine 9(2), 88–104 (2021)

    Tuia, D., Roscher, R., Wegner, J.D., Jacobs, N., Zhu, X., Camps-V alls, G.: Toward a collective agenda on ai for earth science data analysis. IE EE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine 9(2), 88–104 (2021)

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Geoscientific Model Development 5(6), 1589–1596 (2012) https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-1589-2012

    Valcke, S., Balaji, V., Craig, A., DeLuca, C., Dunlap, R., Ford, R.W., J acob, R., Larson, J., Riley, G.D., Vertenstein, M.: Coupling technologies for e arth system modelling. Geoscientific Model Development 5(6), 1589–1596 (2012) https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-1589-2012

    work page doi:10.5194/gmd-5-1589-2012 2012

  18. [18]

    Annual Review of Marine Science 12, 1–23 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010419-010916 22

    Trenberth, K.E., Hurrell, J.W., Fasullo, J.T.: Teleconnections in clima te: Under- standing patterns of variability. Annual Review of Marine Science 12, 1–23 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010419-010916 22

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-marine-010419-010916 2020

  19. [19]

    Journal of Hydrometeorology 22(3), 453–469 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-20-0166.1

    Dirmeyer, P.A., Chen, L., Wu, J.: Understanding land–atmospher e coupling and its role in predictability. Journal of Hydrometeorology 22(3), 453–469 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-20-0166.1

    work page doi:10.1175/jhm-d-20-0166.1 2021

  20. [20]

    Jour nal of Asian Earth Sciences 165, 7–25 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2018.07.015

    Pulinets, S.A., Ouzounov, D.: Lithosphere–atmosphere–ionosp here coupling (laic) model: An unified concept for earthquake precursors. Jour nal of Asian Earth Sciences 165, 7–25 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2018.07.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jseaes.2018.07.015 2018

  21. [21]

    : Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems

    Doney, S.C., Ruckelshaus, M., Duffy, J.E., Barry, J.P., Chan, F., En glish, C.A., Galindo, H.M., Grebmeier, J.M., Hollowed, A.B., Knowlton, N., et al. : Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Annual review of marine scie nce 4(2012), 11–37 (2012)

    work page 2012

  22. [22]

    Environmental Research Le tters 13(6), 063006 (2018)

    Calvin, K., Bond-Lamberty, B.: Integrated human-earth syst em modeling—state of the science and future directions. Environmental Research Le tters 13(6), 063006 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Nature Climate Change 3(1), 59–62 (2013)

    Douville, H., Ribes, A., Decharme, B., Alkama, R., Sheffield, J.: Anthr opogenic influence on multidecadal changes in reconstructed global evapot ranspiration. Nature Climate Change 3(1), 59–62 (2013)

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    Space Weather 17(8), 1166–1207 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1029/2018SW002061

    Camporeale, E.: The challenge of machine learning in space weathe r: Nowcasting and forecasting. Space Weather 17(8), 1166–1207 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1029/2018SW002061

    work page doi:10.1029/2018sw002061 2019

  25. [25]

    Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences 8, 786308 (2022)

    Beedle, J.M., Rura, C.E., Simpson, D.G., Cohen, H.I., Moraes Filho, V.P ., Urit- sky, V.M.: A user’s guide to the magnetically connected space weathe r system: a brief review. Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences 8, 786308 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    npj Climate and Atmospheric Science 4, 28 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-021-00183-w

    Levine, X.J., Cvijanovi´ c, I., Ortega, P., Donat, M.G., Tourigny, E.: Atmospheric feedback explains disparate climate response to regio nal arc- tic sea-ice loss. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science 4, 28 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-021-00183-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41612-021-00183-w 2021

  27. [27]

    Science 359(6375), 8328 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam8328

    Bonan, G.B., Doney, S.C.: Climate, ecosystems, and planetary fu tures: The chal- lenge to modeling the biosphere in earth system models. Science 359(6375), 8328 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam8328

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aam8328 2019

  28. [28]

    Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Sys tems 14(1), 2021–002946 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002946

    Lawrence, D.M., Fisher, R.A., Koven, C.D., Bonan, G.B., al.: The comm unity land model version 5: Description of new features, benchmarking, and impact of forcing uncertainty. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Sys tems 14(1), 2021–002946 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002946

    work page doi:10.1029/2021ms002946 2021

  29. [29]

    LA- CC-06-012 (2015) 23

    Hunke, E.C., Lipscomb, W.H., Turner, A.K., Jeffery, N., Elliott, S.: Cic e: The los alamos sea ice model documentation and software, version 5.1. LA- CC-06-012 (2015) 23

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Mercator Newsletter 28, 16–21 (2008)

    Vancoppenolle, M., Fichefet, T., Goosse, H., Bouillon, S., Beatty, C.K., Maqueda, M.M.: Lim3, an advanced sea-ice model for climate simulation and operational oceanography. Mercator Newsletter 28, 16–21 (2008)

    work page 2008

  31. [31]

    Remote Sensing 16(5), 851 (2024) https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16050851

    Parrot, M., Zhang, X., Pulinets, S.A.: Artificial intelligence applicat ions for lithosphere–atmosphere–ionosphere coupling studies and earthq uake precursors. Remote Sensing 16(5), 851 (2024) https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16050851

    work page doi:10.3390/rs16050851 2024

  32. [32]

    Earth and Space Science 9(9), 2022–002289 (2022)

    Tsai, T., Jhuang, H., Ho, Y., Lee, L., Su, W., Hung, S., Lee, K., Fu, C ., Lin, H., Kuo, C.: Deep learning of detecting ionospheric precursors associa ted with m > 6.0 earthquakes in taiwan. Earth and Space Science 9(9), 2022–002289 (2022)

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Advances in space research 75(3), 3082–3114 (2025)

    Belehaki, A., H¨ aggstr¨ om, I., Kiss, T., Galkin, I., Tjulin, A., Mih´ alik ov´ a, M., Enell, C.-F., Pierantoni, G., Chen, Y., Sipos, G., et al.: Integrating plasmasphere, ionosphere and thermosphere observations and models into a stan dardised open access research environment: The pithia-nrf international proj ect. Advances in space research 75(3), 3082...

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    : Course: Cross-scale coupling processes in the solar–terrestrial system—scostep’s ne w program for 2026–2030

    Laurenza, M., Shiokawa, K., Molina, M., Liu, H.-L., Krivova, N., Funk e, B., Kusano, K., Habarulema, J., Buresova, D., West, M., et al. : Course: Cross-scale coupling processes in the solar–terrestrial system—scostep’s ne w program for 2026–2030. Earth, Planets and Space 77(1), 180 (2025)

    work page 2026

  35. [35]

    Monthly Weather Review 146(11), 3505–3544 (2018)

    Gross, M., Wan, H., Rasch, P.J., Caldwell, P.M., Williamson, D.L., Klocke, D., Jablonowski, C., Thatcher, D.R., Wood, N., Cullen, M., et al.: Physics–dynamics coupling in weather, climate, and earth system models: Challenges an d recent progress. Monthly Weather Review 146(11), 3505–3544 (2018)

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    Environmental Modelling & Software 23(10-11), 1240–1249 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.03.002

    Warner, J.C., Perlin, N., Skyllingstad, E.D.: Using the model coupling toolkit to couple earth system models. Environmental Modelling & Software 23(10-11), 1240–1249 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.03.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.03.002 2008

  37. [37]

    Nature co mmunications 11(1), 3295 (2020)

    Yuval, J., O’Gorman, P.A.: Stable machine-learning parameterizat ion of subgrid processes for climate modeling at a range of resolutions. Nature co mmunications 11(1), 3295 (2020)

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    : Enforcing analytic constraints in neural networks emulating physical systems

    Beucler, T., Rasp, S., et al. : Enforcing analytic constraints in neural networks emulating physical systems. Physical Review Letters 126, 098302 (2021)

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Procedia Computer Science 51, 2066–2075 (2015)

    Lemari´ e, F., Blayo, E., Debreu, L.: Analysis of ocean-atmosph ere coupling algo- rithms: Consistency and stability. Procedia Computer Science 51, 2066–2075 (2015)

    work page 2066

  40. [40]

    Nature Communications 16(1), 1919 (2025) 24

    Camps-Valls, G., Fern´ andez-Torres, M.-´A., Cohrs, K.-H., H¨ ohl, A., Castelletti, A., Pacal, A., Robin, C., Martinuzzi, F., Papoutsis, I., Prapas, I., et al.: Artificial intelligence for modeling and understanding extreme weather and clim ate events. Nature Communications 16(1), 1919 (2025) 24

    work page 1919

  41. [41]

    Journal of Computationa l Physics 378, 686–707 (2019)

    Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., Karniadakis, G.E.: Physics-informed neu ral networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computationa l Physics 378, 686–707 (2019)

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    Envir onmental and Earth Sciences Proceedings 34(1), 15 (2025)

    Supto, S.T.J.: Next-generation climate modeling: Ai-enhanced, m achine- learning, and hybrid approaches beyond conventional gcms. Envir onmental and Earth Sciences Proceedings 34(1), 15 (2025)

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    : Disentangling atmospheric, hydrological, and coupling uncertainties in compound flood modeling within a coupled e arth system model

    Feng, D., Tan, Z., Engwirda, D., Wolfe, J.D., Xu, D., Liao, C., Bisht, G ., Bene- dict, J.J., Zhou, T., Deb, M., et al. : Disentangling atmospheric, hydrological, and coupling uncertainties in compound flood modeling within a coupled e arth system model. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 25(9), 3619–3639 (2025)

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    Space Habitation 1(3), 100032 (2025)

    Thaker, P., Desai, A., Panchal, P., Sutaria, D., Shah, M., Prajapa ti, M.: Evaluat- ing ai approaches for space weather prediction: Strengthening s atellite resilience and technology systems. Space Habitation 1(3), 100032 (2025)

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate 15, 40 (2025)

    Themelis, K., Belehaki, A., Koutroumbas, K., Segarra, A., De Paula , V., Navas- Portella, V., Altadill, D.: Neural network-based short-term foreca st of large scale travelling ionospheric disturbance occurrence above middle and sou thern europe. Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate 15, 40 (2025)

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    : The architecture of the earth system modeling framework

    Hill, C., DeLuca, C., Suarez, M., Da Silva, A., et al. : The architecture of the earth system modeling framework. Computing in Science & Engineerin g 6(1), 18–28 (2004)

    work page 2004

  47. [47]

    The Intern ational Journal of High Performance Computing Applications 26(1), 31–42 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1177/1094342011428141

    Craig, A.P., Vertenstein, M., Jacob, R.L.: A new flexible coupler for earth system modeling developed for ccsm4 and cesm1. The Intern ational Journal of High Performance Computing Applications 26(1), 31–42 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1177/1094342011428141

    work page doi:10.1177/1094342011428141 2012

  48. [48]

    Science 275(5299), 502–509 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5299.502

    Sellers, P.J., Dickinson, R.E., Randall, D.A., Betts, A.K., Hall, F.G., Berr y, J.A., Collatz, G.J., Denning, A.S., Mooney, H.A., Nobre, C.A., Sato, N., Field , C.B., Henderson-Sellers, A.: Modeling the exchanges of energy, wat er, and car- bon between continents and the atmosphere. Science 275(5299), 502–509 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5299.502

    work page doi:10.1126/science.275.5299.502 1997

  49. [49]

    Journal of Climate 16(4), 571–591 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016 ⟨0571:BPOASF⟩2.0.CO;2

    Fairall, C.W., Bradley, E.F., Hare, J.E., Grachev, A.A., Edson, J.B.: Bulk parameterization of air–sea fluxes: Updates and verification for the coare algorithm. Journal of Climate 16(4), 571–591 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016 ⟨0571:BPOASF⟩2.0.CO;2

    work page doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016 2003

  50. [50]

    Cambridge University Press, ??? (2007 ) 25

    Stensrud, D.J.: Parameterization Schemes: Keys to Understa nding Numerical Weather Prediction Models. Cambridge University Press, ??? (2007 ) 25

    work page 2007

  51. [51]

    Boundary-Layer Meteorology 177(2), 511–539 (2020)

    Edwards, J.M., Beljaars, A.C., Holtslag, A.A., Lock, A.P.: Represen tation of boundary-layer processes in numerical weather prediction and clim ate models. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 177(2), 511–539 (2020)

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 5(1), 48–57 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20026

    Brovkin, V., Boysen, L.R., Raddatz, T., Gayler, V., Loew, A., Claus sen, M.: Evaluation of vegetation cover and land-surface albedo in mpi-esm c mip5 sim- ulations. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 5(1), 48–57 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20026

    work page doi:10.1002/jame.20026 2013

  53. [53]

    Nature Reviews Physics 3, 422–440 (2021)

    Karniadakis, G.E., Kevrekidis, I.G., Lu, L., Perdikaris, P., Wang, S., Yang, L.: Physics-informed machine learning. Nature Reviews Physics 3, 422–440 (2021)

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    Geoenergy Science and Engineering 239, 212938 (2024)

    Latrach, A., Malki, M.L., Morales, M., Mehana, M., Rabiei, M.: A critica l review of physics-informed machine learning applications in subsurface ene rgy systems. Geoenergy Science and Engineering 239, 212938 (2024)

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (NeurIPS 2019), pp

    Greydanus, S., Dzamba, M., Yosinski, J.: Hamiltonian neural netw orks. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (NeurIPS 2019), pp. 15353–15363 (2019)

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    The Inn ovation Energy 2(2), 100087–1 (2025)

    Wang, N., Chen, Y., Zhang, D.: A comprehensive review of physics -informed deep learning and its applications in geoenergy development. The Inn ovation Energy 2(2), 100087–1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    Geophysica l Research Letters 51(2), 2023–106676 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL106676

    Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Huang, G., Tian, Q.: Coupling physical factors for pre- cipitation forecast in china with graph neural network. Geophysica l Research Letters 51(2), 2023–106676 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL106676

    work page doi:10.1029/2023gl106676 2023

  58. [58]

    Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 41, 1299–1312 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-024-3288-6

    Wang, Y., Huang, G., Pan, B., Lin, P., Boers, N., Tao, W., Chen, Y., Liu, B., Li, H.: Correcting climate model sea surface temperature sim ula- tions with generative adversarial networks: Climatology, interann ual variabil- ity, and extremes. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 41, 1299–1312 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-024-3288-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s00376-024-3288-6 2024

  59. [59]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07222 (20 24)

    Kochkov, D., Szwarcman, D., Rolnick, D., et al.: Neural general c irculation models for weather and climate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07222 (20 24)

    work page arXiv

  60. [60]

    Journal of Adv ances in Modeling Earth Systems 16(6), 2023–003926 (2024)

    Bouabid, S., Sejdinovic, D., Watson-Parris, D.: Fairgp: A bayesia n energy bal- ance model for surface temperatures emulation. Journal of Adv ances in Modeling Earth Systems 16(6), 2023–003926 (2024)

    work page 2023

  61. [61]

    Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 12(11), 2020–002203 (2020)

    Rasp, S., Dueben, P.D., Scher, S., Weyn, J.A., Mouatadid, S., Thue rey, N.: Weatherbench: A benchmark dataset for data-driven weathe r forecasting. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 12(11), 2020–002203 (2020)

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 24(89), 1–97 (2023)

    Kovachki, N., Li, Z., Liu, B., Azizzadenesheli, K., Bhattacharya, K ., Stuart, A., Anandkumar, A.: Neural operator: Learning maps between funct ion spaces with 26 applications to pdes. Journal of Machine Learning Research 24(89), 1–97 (2023)

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

    Fourier Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equations

    Li, Z., Kovachki, N., Azizzadenesheli, K., Liu, B., Bhattacharya, K ., Stuart, A., Anandkumar, A.: Fourier neural operator for parametric part ial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895 (2020)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  64. [64]

    DeepONet: Learning nonlinear operators for identifying differential equations based on the universal approximation theorem of operators

    Lu, L., Jin, P., Karniadakis, G.E.: Deeponet: Learning nonlinear op erators for identifying differential equations based on the universal approxima tion theorem of operators. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03193 (2019)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 1910

  65. [65]

    AGU Advances 6(4), 2025–001706 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1029/2025A V001706

    Cresswell-Clay, N., Liu, B., Durran, D.R., Liu, Z., Espinosa, Z.I., Mor eno, R.A., Karlbauer, M.: A deep learning earth system model for efficient s im- ulation of the observed climate. AGU Advances 6(4), 2025–001706 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1029/2025A V001706

    work page doi:10.1029/2025a 2025

  66. [66]

    Sc ientific Reports 14(21181) (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-72145-0

    Chattopadhyay, A., Gray, M., Wu, T., Lowe, A.B., He, R.: Oceanne t: a prin- cipled neural operator-based digital twin for regional oceans. Sc ientific Reports 14(21181) (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-72145-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-72145-0 2024

  67. [67]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.02268 (2025)

    Irvin, J.A., Han, J., Wang, Z., Alharbi, A., Zhao, Y., Bayarsaikhan, N.-E., Visioni, D., Ng, A.Y., Watson-Parris, D.: Spatiotemporal pyramid flow m atching for climate emulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.02268 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.12490 (2025)

    Duncan, J.P., Wu, E., Dheeshjith, S., Subel, A., Arcomano, T., Clar k, S.K., Henn, B., Kwa, A., McGibbon, J., Perkins, W.A., et al.: Samudrace: Fast and accurate coupled climate modeling with 3d ocean and atmosphere emu lators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.12490 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Geoscientific Model Development 16(22), 6433– 6477 (2023)

    Burgh-Day, C.O., Leeuwenburg, T.: Machine learning for numeric al weather and climate modelling: a review. Geoscientific Model Development 16(22), 6433– 6477 (2023)

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    Physical review letters 126(9), 098302 (2021)

    Beucler, T., Pritchard, M., Rasp, S., Ott, J., Baldi, P., Gentine, P.: Enforcing analytic constraints in neural networks emulating physical system s. Physical review letters 126(9), 098302 (2021)

    work page 2021

  71. [71]

    PNAS Nexus (2022)

    Pathak, J., et al.: Fourcastnet: A global data-driven high-res olution weather model. PNAS Nexus (2022)

    work page 2022

  72. [72]

    Science 367(6481), 1026– 1030 (2020)

    Raissi, M., Yazdani, A., Karniadakis, G.E.: Hidden fluid mechanics: Le arning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations. Science 367(6481), 1026– 1030 (2020)

    work page 2020

  73. [73]

    IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 20(1), 61–80 (2008) 27

    Scarselli, F., Gori, M., Tsoi, A.C., Hagenbuchner, M., Monfardini, G.: The graph neural network model. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 20(1), 61–80 (2008) 27

    work page 2008

  74. [74]

    In: Proceedings of the International Confere nce on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2017)

    Kipf, T.N., Welling, M.: Semi-supervised classification with graph con volu- tional networks. In: Proceedings of the International Confere nce on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2017)

    work page 2017

  75. [75]

    IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 34(4), 18–42 (2017)

    Bronstein, M.M., Bruna, J., LeCun, Y., Szlam, A., Vandergheynst , P.: Geometric deep learning: going beyond euclidean data. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 34(4), 18–42 (2017)

    work page 2017

  76. [76]

    AI Open 1, 57–81 (2020)

    Zhou, J., Cui, G., Zhang, Z., Yang, C., Liu, Z., Wang, M., Li, L.: Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications. AI Open 1, 57–81 (2020)

    work page 2020

  77. [77]

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi2336 arXiv:https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adi2336

    Lam, R., Sanchez-Gonzalez, A., Willson, M., Wirnsberger, P., Fort unato, M., al.: Learning skillful medium-range global weather forecasting. Scienc e 382(6669), 1416–1421 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi2336

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adi2336 2023

  78. [78]

    arXiv p reprint arXiv:2407.15586 (2024)

    Alexe, M., Boucher, E., Lean, P., Pinnington, E., Laloyaux, P., McN ally, A., Lang, S., et al.: GraphDOP: Towards skilful data-driven medium-ran ge weather forecasts trained and initialised directly from observations. arXiv p reprint arXiv:2407.15586 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.20416 (2025)

    Boucher, E., Alexe, M., Lean, P., Pinnington, E., Laloyaux, P., Zam pieri, L., Rosnay, P., Bormann, N., McNally, A.: Learning coupled Earth system dynamics with GraphDOP. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.20416 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    AAAI (2018)

    Li, Q., Han, Z., Wu, X.-M.: Deeper insights into graph convolutional networks for semi-supervised learning. AAAI (2018)

    work page 2018

Showing first 80 references.