Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 75 references

FESOM2-JAX v1.0: a differentiable shadow of the ocean-sea-ice model FESOM2, cast onto GPUs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A JAX rewrite of a global ocean-ice model tracks the Fortran original for 62 years and adds a full gradient.

desk verdict A credible first: a differentiable, GPU-portable, unstructured-mesh ocean-sea-ice model with a genuinely strong verification chain — the weak point is an audibility gap in the kernel-level reference, not a load-bearing error. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01546 v1 pith:WSFAZBPM submitted 2026-08-02 physics.ao-ph cs.SEphysics.comp-phphysics.flu-dyn

Nikolay V. Koldunov , Sergey Danilov , Suvarchal Cheedela , Dmitry Sidorenko , Sebastian Beyer , Patrick Scholz , Ivan Kuznetsov , Jan Streffing
show 4 more authors
Aleksei Koldunov Dmitrii Pantiukhin Svetlana N. Loza Thomas Jung
This is my paper
classification physics.ao-phcs.SEphysics.comp-phphysics.flu-dyn
keywords FESOM2JAXdifferentiableprogrammingoceanmodelseaiceGPUcodeshadowunstructuredmesh
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 presents FESOM2-JAX, a re-implementation of the FESOM2 ocean and sea-ice model in JAX, kept as a faithful code shadow of the Fortran production model. The authors claim that in a 1958-2019 hindcast at one-degree equivalent resolution, the JAX and Fortran versions agree in mean state to about 0.004 degrees Celsius at the surface, two orders of magnitude smaller than either model's bias against observations, while tracking ocean heat content within one zettajoule and reproducing the sea-ice seasonal cycle. They also claim that a single reverse-mode pass through the entire time loop returns the sensitivity of a model diagnostic to a parameter at every mesh vertex, verified against finite differences. This matters because it gives a CMIP-class ocean model a maintainable, exact-for-the-discretization adjoint and tangent-linear model, opening the door to gradient-based calibration and to training hybrid machine-learning components through realistic ocean physics.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the code shadow verification method: the JAX port is not written from the Fortran directly but kernel by kernel against an instrumented serial C mirror of FESOM2, with each kernel required to match the C dumps to about 1e-15 (pointwise) or 1e-12 (reductions), and the whole assembled model then compared against Fortran itself in a multi-decadal hindcast. Differentiability is carried by making the timestep a pure, statically compiled function, replacing data-dependent loop stops with fixed iteration counts, giving finite gradients at non-smooth switches, and checkpointing the reverse sweep in nested blocks. The halo exchange, being linear, obtains an exact adjoint by c

What would settle it

Run the same 1958-2019 configuration but compare JAX kernel outputs directly against instrumented Fortran output (bypassing the C mirror) for the z-star coordinate, cvmix-TKE, and mEVP subroutines; any disagreement beyond the stated round-off tolerances would falsify the kernel-level fidelity claim. Alternatively, re-initialize or extend the hindcast and check whether the JAX-Fortran salinity residual changes sign or continues to grow, which would indicate a systematic rather than chaotic difference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

FESOM2-JAX is built as a code shadow: a kernel-by-kernel translation of FESOM2 from Fortran to JAX, where every kernel is verified against an instrumented serial C translation of the Fortran code. The full timestep is compiled as a pure function over the model state, run inside a single jax.lax.scan. Iterative solvers are either unrolled for a fixed number of iterations or, in the case of the free-surface conjugate-gradient solver, wrapped in a custom_linear_solve so the backward pass differentiates the linear system implicitly. The central experimental claim is that the assembled JAX model and the Fortran FESOM2, run with identical physics and forcing, produce statistically indistinguishabl

Load-bearing premise

The fidelity claim rests on the instrumented serial C translation being an exact, literal mirror of Fortran FESOM2 for the extended components (z-star coordinate, cvmix-TKE, mEVP); since the final long comparison is statistical, a small systematic translation error that averages out over decades could survive undetected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gradient-based calibration of ocean and sea-ice parameters becomes feasible through the full time loop at a cost independent of the number of parameters.
  • The same source provides a tangent-linear model, whose memory does not grow with the integration window, for studying the response of every field to a single parameter.
  • Hybrid physics-machine-learning components can be trained through the dynamical core, since gradients extend to any JAX code added to the model.
  • Developments made in the shadow, such as tuned parameters or trained components, can be carried back into the Fortran production model because the two remain statistically close.
  • The 1-degree configuration fits on a single GPU and a node of four GH200s integrates about 113 simulated years per wall-clock day, making decades-long experiments inexpensive.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own data show a salinity residual that grows with a consistent sign over six decades; although the authors attribute the original drift to a fixed freshwater bug, the residual could signal small systematic conservation differences that a climatological RMS comparison may hide.
  • Because every JAX kernel is gated against an LLM-translated C mirror rather than directly against Fortran, a direct kernel-level dump comparison against Fortran would close the verification chain more tightly and would be a natural next check.
  • The authors note that gradients through chaotic dynamics are only informative over finite horizons, which likely limits adjoint-based calibration to short windows unless statistical sensitivities are used.
  • The communication-bound scaling and the observed transport ranking varying with machine imply that optimal partitions and exchange schemes will need to be re-tuned as GPU networks and on-node memory evolve.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents FESOM2-JAX, a Python/JAX re-implementation of the unstructured-mesh ocean–sea-ice model FESOM2. The authors frame it as a 'code shadow': a projection of the Fortran model onto the JAX ecosystem, retaining the original's discretization, physics, and forcing, while gaining GPU portability and native reverse-mode differentiability. The port was performed with LLM-assisted translation and verified kernel-by-kernel against an instrumented serial C translation of FESOM2. The central fidelity evidence is a 1958–2019 CORE2 hindcast in which JAX and Fortran runs agree to roughly two orders of magnitude better than either agrees with observations, together with a FORCA20 eddying visual comparison. Performance is documented from one GPU to 256 GPUs on A100 and GH200 systems, including a claimed 112.8 simulated years per wall-clock day for CORE2 on four GH200s. The differentiability claim is supported by finite-difference gradient checks, a tangent-linear comparison, and sensitivity maps for two parameters. The paper claims this is the first CMIP-class global ocean–sea-ice model written natively in a differentiable framework and the first on an unstructured mesh.

Significance. If the fidelity, scalability, and differentiability claims survive scrutiny, this is a significant contribution to model infrastructure. A differentiable global ocean–sea-ice model of FESOM2's complexity, with verified reverse-mode through the full time loop, would enable new classes of adjoint sensitivity studies, gradient-based calibration, and hybrid physics–ML experiments. The verification effort is unusually thorough for a model port: roughly 640 tests in 78 modules, finite-difference gradient checks, a bit-reproducible continuous-integration gate, and a 62-year statistical comparison against the Fortran original. These are genuine strengths and set a high bar for comparable efforts. The main uncertainties are evidentiary rather than conceptual: the kernel-level verification chain rests partly on an unshown C-vs-Fortran link, and the code and verification artifacts are not yet archived.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4] The kernel-level verification gates every JAX kernel against an instrumented serial C translation, not directly against Fortran. For the z⋆ coordinate, cvmix-TKE, and mEVP rheology—the components used in the Sect. 4 hindcast—the paper states only that the C extensions were 'validated against instrumented Fortran output' before adoption, with no C-vs-Fortran comparison shown and no dumps archived. Any C-reference translation error is therefore inherited by all JAX kernels. The end-to-end comparison in Sect. 4 is statistical and can miss systematic errors, as the paper's own freshwater-budget episode (§2.4, §4.3) demonstrates. The present run still shows a consistent-sign salinity residual (Fig. 4b, growing to about +2.9×10^{-5}) that is not diagnosed. Please provide or archive the C-vs-Fortran validation for the extended components and add a direct, more sensitive JAX-vs-Fortran check, su
  2. [§5.10] The statement 'The Fortran original runs 512 ranks and reaches 87.8 SYPD on four CPU nodes, faster than any of our GPU configurations' is internally inconsistent with Table 3 and §5.2, where CORE2 on four GH200 GPUs delivers 112.8 SYPD and on four A100s 57.7 SYPD. This is a load-bearing performance comparison in the section that argues CPU production remains with Fortran. Please correct or qualify the sentence (e.g., 'faster than our A100 GPU configurations') so that the performance claims are mutually consistent.
  3. [Code and data availability] The verification artifacts are not yet available: the model version is to be tagged and archived 'on acceptance (DOI:TODO)', and the reduction scripts and derived arrays are promised later. For a code-shadow paper whose central evidence is kernel-level comparison against a non-public C reference, the C reference, its instrumented dumps, and the comparison outputs should be accessible at submission/review time. Without them, the key verification step cannot be independently checked.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §2.4] The abstract says the model is 'verified kernel by kernel against the original'. This should be qualified: the kernels are gated against an instrumented C translation, with the original Fortran reached only indirectly. The present wording oversells the directness of the verification chain.
  2. [Abstract and §5.10] The phrase 'runs unchanged from a laptop CPU to 256 GPUs' is too unqualified: §5.10 states that NG5 does not run on CPU at all. Please qualify by configuration or explain the CPU memory constraint in the abstract claim.
  3. [§4.1/§4.2] PHC3.0 is used both as the initial condition and as the observational reference for the mean-state bias. The model-vs-observation RMS numbers are therefore not fully independent of the initialization. Consider adding an independent climatology (e.g., WOA) for at least one metric, or explicitly noting this dependence.
  4. [§4.5] The FORCA20 comparison is visual and limited to one daily mean in year 2. The text already notes that quantitative eddying evaluation is future work, but the adjacent sentence that the JAX port 'runs the same physics on eddy-permitting meshes without modification' should be softened to reflect the qualitative nature of the evidence presented.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the shadow-to-original comparison is an external empirical check, not a definitional equivalence.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that FESOM2-JAX faithfully shadows Fortran FESOM2, and this is supported by an independent end-to-end comparison: Sect. 4.1 states 'The comparison is against Fortran FESOM2, not against the C reference from which the port was built,' and Sect. 2.4 explicitly says 'the chain closes back on the original: the hindcast of Sect. 4 compares the assembled model against Fortran FESOM2 itself, rather than against the C reference the port was built from, so an infidelity introduced at either translation step, Fortran to C or C to JAX, would appear in this comparison.' This is a genuine falsifiable check rather than a tautology, since the JAX and Fortran runs are not bit-identical and the paper documents real differences (e.g., the freshwater-budget defect). The kernel-by-kernel verification uses an instrumented C translation from the authors' prior work, which is a potential trust and verifiability weakness, but it is not circular: the C reference is an intermediate artifact, and the final Fortran comparison provides independent evidence that would expose a translation error. Gradient checks are verified against finite differences (Sect. 2.4, Sect. 6), which are independent of the automatic-differentiation machinery. No parameters are fitted to the verification targets, and the observational references (PHC3.0, OSI-SAF) are external datasets rather than outputs of the model. Self-citations, including Koldunov et al. (2026b), are present but are not load-bearing in a circular sense: the decisive fidelity evidence is the assembled Fortran comparison, not the cited translation workflow. The weakest point—the asserted validation of the extended C reference components against Fortran—is a correctness/evidence concern, not a circularity, because the paper's own final comparison is designed to catch such an error and the paper reports a concrete instance of it doing so.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities; its central claims rest on inherited physics and numerics and on tooling assumptions about JAX AD and the C reference. The most consequential axioms are listed above.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The hydrostatic, Boussinesq primitive equations on an unstructured triangular mesh with cell-vertex finite-volume discretization constitute a valid model of the ocean-sea-ice system.
    Central to the fidelity claim; taken from FESOM2 (Danilov et al. 2017), not re-derived here (Sect. 2.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The instrumented serial C translation used as the kernel-level reference is a faithful literal mirror of the Fortran routines, including the z-star, cvmix-TKE and mEVP extensions.
    The kernel-by-kernel verification gates JAX kernels against C dumps; if the C reference contains errors, kernel verification is compromised (Sect. 2.4).
  • domain assumption JAX reverse-mode automatic differentiation and the custom_linear_solve implicit differentiation of the early-stopped CG solve produce the exact derivative of the discretized forward model.
    The gradient claims rely on the framework's AD correctness; verified for tested cases by finite differences but assumed as a general guarantee (Sect. 2.2, 6).
  • domain assumption Derivatives through chaotic ocean dynamics are meaningful only over finite horizons shorter than the instability timescale.
    The paper explicitly bounds its sensitivity maps to six-hour windows; without this assumption, long-window gradients would be uninformative (Sect. 6, citing Lea et al. 2000).
  • domain assumption The comparison statistics (30-year climatological means, RMS) are sufficient to detect any infidelity that would matter for the paper's stated purposes.
    JAX and Fortran are chaotic and not bit-identical, so the fidelity claim is statistical; a small systematic deviation averaging out over decades could escape detection (Sect. 4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FESOM2-JAX v1.0: a differentiable shadow of the ocean-sea-ice model FESOM2, cast onto GPUs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WSFAZBPM

@misc{pith2026260801546,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FESOM2-JAX v1.0: a differentiable shadow of the ocean-sea-ice model FESOM2, cast onto GPUs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WSFAZBPM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01546}
}
abstract

We present FESOM2-JAX, a Python re-implementation of the Finite-volumE Sea ice-Ocean Model (FESOM2) in JAX. The model retains the unstructured-mesh, cell-vertex finite-volume formulation of the original, runs unchanged from a laptop CPU to 256 GPUs, and is end-to-end differentiable. FESOM2-JAX is a code shadow of the Fortran model: a projection onto the Python ecosystem, translated with large language models and verified kernel by kernel against the original. It is built to lower the barrier to experimentation, from new numerics and parameterizations to gradient-based calibration and hybrid physics-machine-learning components, while remaining close enough to the original so that what is developed in the shadow can be transferred back. In a 1958-2019 hindcast at 1$^{\circ}$ equivalent resolution with identical physics and forcing, the mean states of the JAX and Fortran versions differ from each other by two orders of magnitude less than either differs from observations, and the two runs agree for six decades in global temperature, salinity, heat content, and sea ice. The complete 1$^{\circ}$ configuration fits on a single GPU, a node of four GH200 superchips integrates $\sim$113 simulated years per wall-clock day, and meshes of up to 7.4 million surface vertices ($\sim$5 km) scale to 128 GPUs. What limits the model is communication rather than arithmetic. What the shadow adds to the original is the gradient: a single reverse-mode pass through the full time loop returns the sensitivity of a model diagnostic to a parameter at every mesh vertex, verified against finite differences. To our knowledge, FESOM2-JAX is the first global ocean-sea-ice model of CMIP-class complexity written natively in a differentiable framework, and the first on an unstructured mesh.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01546 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. What each halo transport sends, for one device of a schematic partition. (a) A small unstructured mesh cut into P = 16 subdomains. The highlighted device owns 62 vertices (blue) and its stencils read 30 more that it does not own (orange): its halo. Six of the other 15 devices own part of that halo and are numbered; the remaining nine own none of it. (b to d) What the highlighted device receives per step under each o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CORE2 1980–2009 annual-mean surface bias against PHC3.0. Rows: SST (top), SSS (bottom). Columns: JAX−PHC, Fortran−PHC, and JAX−Fortran. Note the much tighter colour bar for the difference column (±0.05 ◦C, ±0.025). RMSE is annotated. 0 50 100 250 500 1000 2000 4000 6000 depth [m] RMS bias = 0.379 JAX PHC RMS bias = 0.379 Fortran PHC RMS = 1.2×10 3 JAX Fortran 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 latitude [°N] 0 50 100 250 500 1000 2… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. CORE2 global zonal-mean temperature (top) and salinity (bottom) bias against PHC3.0 over 1980–2009, on a sqrt-warped depth axis. Columns: JAX−PHC, Fortran−PHC, and JAX−Fortran. Note the much tighter colour bar for the difference column (±0.05 ◦C, ±0.01). The annotated RMS is that of the zonal-mean bias, so it is smaller than a full three-dimensional RMS. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Global drift over the CORE2 hindcast (1958–2019), shown throughout as JAX minus the matched Fortran run. (a) volume-mean temperature, full depth and 0–700 m; (b) volume-mean salinity; (c) ocean heat content; all three as annual means. (d) the JAX−Fortran temperature an…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CORE2 sea ice (1980–2009): the seasonal cycle of the ice-area difference, JAX minus the matched Fortran run, for the Northern (a) and Southern (b) Hemisphere. JAX SST Fortran SST JAX surface speed Fortran surface speed 0 5 10 15 20 25 SST [°C] 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Daily-mean SST (top) and surface speed (bottom) in the Gulf Stream region on 5 January of hindcast year 2 on the FORCA20 mesh (2.13 × 106 surface vertices, ∼14 km local resolution): JAX (left) versus the matched Fortran run (right). The Fortran fields come from a one-m…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Strong scaling of FESOM2-JAX for the full ocean+sea-ice model, using the same source code on two GPU systems: A100 (DKRZ Levante; solid, circles) and GH200 (JUPITER booster; dash-dotted, triangles). (a) Time per step versus the number of GPUs, per mesh; dotted lines ar…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The same measurements as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Adjoint sensitivity maps computed by reverse-mode automatic differentiation through FESOM2-JAX on the CORE2 mesh. Top: gradient of the global-mean mixed-layer depth with respect to a vertex-wise field of the TKE mixing parameter ck; bottom: gradient of upper-ocean (top…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V ., Ford, R

    Adams, S. V ., Ford, R. W., Hambley, M., Hobson, J. M., Kav ˇciˇc, I., Maynard, C. M., et al.: LFRic: Meeting the challenges of scal- ability and performance portability in weather and climate models, Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 132, 383–396, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2019.02.007,

    doi:10.1016/j.jpdc.2019.02.007 2019

  2. [6]

    Dahm, J., Davis, E., Deconinck, F., Elbert, O., George, R., McGibbon, J., others, and Fuhrer, O.: Pace v0.2: a Python-based performance- portable atmospheric model, Geoscientific Model Development, 16, 2719–2736, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2719-2023,

    work page doi:10.5194/gmd-16-2719-2023 2023

  3. [7]

    Danilov, S., Wang, Q., Timmermann, R., Iakovlev, N., Sidorenko, D., Kimmritz, M., Jung, T., and Schröter, J.: Finite-Element Sea Ice Model (FESIM), version 2, Geoscientific Model Development, 8, 1747–1761, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1747-2015,

    work page doi:10.5194/gmd-8-1747-2015 2015

  4. [9]

    J., Kontkanen, J., Sandu, I., Acosta, M., Al Turjmam, M

    Doblas-Reyes, F. J., Kontkanen, J., Sandu, I., Acosta, M., Al Turjmam, M. H., Alsina-Ferrer, I., Andrés-Martínez, M., Anerdi, C., Arriola, L., Axness, M., Batlle Martín, M., Bauer, P., Becker, T., Beltrán, D., Beyer, S., Bockelmann, H., Bretonnière, P.-A., Cabaniols, S., Caprioli, S., Castrillo, M., Chandrasekar, A., Cheedela, S., Correal, V ., Danovaro, ...

    2026

  5. [14]

    Frezat, H., Le Sommer, J., Fablet, R., Balarac, G., and Lguensat, R.: A posteriori learning for quasi-geostrophic turbulence parametrization, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 14, e2022MS003 124, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS003124,

    doi:10.1029/2022ms003124

  6. [15]

    P., Losch, M., Cheedela, S

    Gärtner, J. P., Losch, M., Cheedela, S. K., Jochum, M., and Nuterman, R.: Veris: fast & efficient sea-ice modeling in Python with GPU acceleration, Geoscientific Model Development, 19, 5225–5236, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-5225-2026,

    work page doi:10.5194/gmd-19-5225-2026 2026

  7. [16]

    Gaspar, P., Grégoris, Y ., and Lefevre, J.-M.: A simple eddy kinetic energy model for simulations of the oceanic vertical mix- ing: Tests at station Papa and long-term upper ocean study site, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 95, 16 179–16 193, https://doi.org/10.1029/JC095iC09p16179,

    doi:10.1029/jc095ic09p16179

  8. [18]

    Gent, P. R. and McWilliams, J. C.: Isopycnal mixing in ocean circulation models, Journal of Physical Oceanography, 20, 150–155, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1990)020<0150:IMIOCM>2.0.CO;2,

    doi:10.1175/1520-0485(1990)020 1990

Show all 75 references
  1. [19]

    and Kaminski, T.: Recipes for adjoint code construction, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 24, 437–474, https://doi.org/10.1145/293686.293695,

    Giering, R. and Kaminski, T.: Recipes for adjoint code construction, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 24, 437–474, https://doi.org/10.1145/293686.293695,

  2. [21]

    Griewank, A. and Walther, A.: Algorithm 799: revolve: an implementation of checkpointing for the reverse or adjoint mode of computational differentiation, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 26, 19–45, https://doi.org/10.1145/347837.347846,

  3. [23]

    and Vicentini, F.: mpi4jax: Zero-copy MPI communication of JAX arrays, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3419, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03419,

    Häfner, D. and Vicentini, F.: mpi4jax: Zero-copy MPI communication of JAX arrays, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3419, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03419,

    doi

  4. [25]

    Häfner, D., Nuterman, R., and Jochum, M.: Fast, cheap, and turbulent — Global ocean modeling with GPU acceleration in Python, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 13, e2021MS002 717, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002717,

    doi

  5. [26]

    Heimbach, P., Hill, C., and Giering, R.: An efficient exact adjoint of the parallel MIT general circulation model, generated via automatic differentiation, Future Generation Computer Systems, 21, 1356–1371, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2004.11.010,

    2004 doi

  6. [33]

    A., Alieva, A., Wang, Q., Brenner, M

    Kochkov, D., Smith, J. A., Alieva, A., Wang, Q., Brenner, M. P., and Hoyer, S.: Machine learning-accelerated computational fluid dynamics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118, e2101784 118, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2101784118,

    doi

  7. [34]

    Kochkov, D., Yuval, J., Langmore, I., Norgaard, P., Smith, J., Mooers, G., Klöwer, M., others, and Hoyer, S.: Neural general circulation models for weather and climate, Nature, 632, 1060–1066, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07744-y,

    doi

  8. [37]

    Large, W. G. and Yeager, S. G.: The global climatology of an interannually varying air–sea flux data set, Climate Dynamics, 33, 341–364, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-008-0441-3,

    doi

  9. [40]

    Löhner, R., Morgan, K., Peraire, J., and Vahdati, M.: Finite element flux-corrected transport (FEM–FCT) for the Euler and Navier–Stokes equations, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 7, 1093–1109, https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.1650071007,

    doi

  10. [42]

    J.: Neutral surfaces, Journal of Physical Oceanography, 17, 1950–1964, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520- 0485(1987)017<1950:NS>2.0.CO;2,

    McDougall, T. J.: Neutral surfaces, Journal of Physical Oceanography, 17, 1950–1964, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520- 0485(1987)017<1950:NS>2.0.CO;2,

    1950 doi

  11. [43]

    L., Gärtner, J

    Moon, J.-Y ., Streffing, J., Lee, S.-S., Semmler, T., Andrés-Martínez, M., Chen, J., Cho, E.-B., Chu, J.-E., Franzke, C. L., Gärtner, J. P., et al.: Earth’s future climate and its variability simulated at 9 km global resolution, Earth System Dynamics, 16, 1103–1134, https://do...

    2025 doi

  12. [45]

    S., Cheng, G., Churavy, V ., Gelbrecht, M., Klöwer, M., Kump, J., Morlighem, M., Williamson, S., Apte, D., Berg, P., Giordano, M., Hill, C., Loose, N., Montoison, A., Narayanan, S

    Moses, W. S., Cheng, G., Churavy, V ., Gelbrecht, M., Klöwer, M., Kump, J., Morlighem, M., Williamson, S., Apte, D., Berg, P., Giordano, M., Hill, C., Loose, N., Montoison, A., Narayanan, S. H. K., Pal, A., Schanen, M., Silvestri, S., Wagner, G., and Heimbach, P.: DJ4Earth: Di...

    doi

  13. [46]

    Pacanowski, R. C. and Philander, S. G. H.: Parameterization of vertical mixing in numerical models of tropical oceans, Journal of Physical Oceanography, 11, 1443–1451, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1981)011<1443:POVMIN>2.0.CO;2,

    1981 doi

  14. [47]

    Rackow, T., Pedruzo-Bagazgoitia, X., Becker, T., Milinski, S., Sandu, I., Aguridan, R., Bechtold, P., Beyer, S., Bidlot, J., Boussetta, S., Deconinck, W., Diamantakis, M., Dueben, P., Dutra, E., Forbes, R., Ghosh, R., Goessling, H. F., Hadade, I., Hegewald, J., Jung, T., Keele...

    2025

  15. [48]

    Ramadhan, A., Wagner, G. L., Hill, C., Campin, J.-M., Churavy, V ., Besard, T., Souza, A., Edelman, A., Ferrari, R., and Mar- shall, J.: Oceananigans.jl: Fast and friendly geophysical fluid dynamics on GPUs, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.21105/jo...

    2018 doi

  16. [49]

    Rasp, S., Pritchard, M. S., and Gentine, P.: Deep learning to represent subgrid processes in climate models, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 9684–9689, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810286115,

    doi

  17. [50]

    H.: Oceanic isopycnal mixing by coordinate rotation, Journal of Physical Oceanography, 12, 1154–1158, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1982)012<1154:OIMBCR>2.0.CO;2,

    Redi, M. H.: Oceanic isopycnal mixing by coordinate rotation, Journal of Physical Oceanography, 12, 1154–1158, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1982)012<1154:OIMBCR>2.0.CO;2,

    1982 doi

  18. [52]

    Scholz, P., Sidorenko, D., Danilov, S., Wang, Q., Koldunov, N., Sein, D., and Jung, T.: Assessment of the Finite-volumE Sea ice–Ocean Model (FESOM2.0) – Part 2: Partial bottom cells, embedded sea ice and vertical mixing library CVMix, Geoscientific Model Development, 15, 335–3...

    2022 doi

  19. [53]

    K., Rackow, T., Lee, J., Dolores-Tesillos, E., Benedict, I., Aengenheyster, M., Aguridan, R., Arduini, G., Baker, A

    Segura, H., Pedruzo-Bagazgoitia, X., Weiss, P., Müller, S. K., Rackow, T., Lee, J., Dolores-Tesillos, E., Benedict, I., Aengenheyster, M., Aguridan, R., Arduini, G., Baker, A. J., Bao, J., Bastin, S., Baulenas, E., Becker, T., Beyer, S., Bockelmann, H., Brüggemann, N., Brunner...

    2025

  20. [54]

    V ., Koldunov, N

    Sein, D. V ., Koldunov, N. V ., Danilov, S., Wang, Q., Sidorenko, D., Fast, I., Rackow, T., Cabos, W., and Jung, T.: Ocean Modeling on a Mesh With Resolution Following the Local Rossby Radius, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 9, 2601–2614, https://doi.org/10.1002...

    doi

  21. [55]

    Semtner, A. J.: A model for the thermodynamic growth of sea ice in numerical investigations of climate, Journal of Physical Oceanography, 6, 379–389, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1976)006<0379:AMFTTG>2.0.CO;2,

    1976 doi

  22. [58]

    L., Constantinou, N

    Silvestri, S., Wagner, G. L., Constantinou, N. C., Hill, C. N., Campin, J.-M., Souza, A. N., Bishnu, S., Churavy, V ., Marshall, J., and Ferrari, R.: A GPU-based ocean dynamical core for routine mesoscale-resolving climate simulations, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Sys...

    doi

  23. [59]

    The basic experiment, Monthly Weather Review, 91, 99– 164, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1963)091<0099:GCEWTP>2.3.CO;2,

    Smagorinsky, J.: General circulation experiments with the primitive equations: I. The basic experiment, Monthly Weather Review, 91, 99– 164, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1963)091<0099:GCEWTP>2.3.CO;2,

    1963 doi

  24. [61]

    35 Stammer, D., Wunsch, C., Giering, R., Eckert, C., Heimbach, P., Marotzke, J., Adcroft, A., Hill, C. N., and Marshall, J.: Global ocean circulation during 1992–1997, estimated from ocean observations and a general circulation model, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 1...

    1992 doi

  25. [62]

    Steele, M., Morley, R., and Ermold, W.: PHC: A global ocean hydrography with a high-quality Arctic Ocean, Journal of Climate, 14, 2079– 2087, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<2079:PAGOHW>2.0.CO;2,

    doi

  26. [64]

    Sumata, H., Kauker, F., Karcher, M., and Gerdes, R.: Simultaneous parameter optimization of an Arctic sea ice–ocean model by a genetic algorithm, Monthly Weather Review, 147, 1899–1926, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0360.1,

    1926 doi

  27. [65]

    M., Harrison, M

    Sweeney, C., Gnanadesikan, A., Griffies, S. M., Harrison, M. J., Rosati, A. J., and Samuels, B. L.: Impacts of shortwave penetration depth on large-scale ocean circulation and heat transport, Journal of Physical Oceanography, 35, 1103–1119, https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO2740.1,

    doi

  28. [66]

    Thacker, W. C. and Long, R. B.: Fitting dynamics to data, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 93, 1227–1240, https://doi.org/10.1029/JC093iC02p01227,

    doi

  29. [68]

    Utke, J., Naumann, U., Fagan, M., Tallent, N., Strout, M., Heimbach, P., Hill, C., and Wunsch, C.: OpenAD/F: A modu- lar open-source tool for automatic differentiation of Fortran codes, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 34, 1–36, https://doi.org/10.1145/1377596.137759...

  30. [70]

    Vidard, A., Bouttier, P.-A., and Vigilant, F.: NEMOTAM: tangent and adjoint models for the ocean modelling platform NEMO, Geoscientific Model Development, 8, 1245–1257, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1245-2015,

    2015 doi

  31. [71]

    Wang, Q., Danilov, S., Sidorenko, D., Timmermann, R., Wekerle, C., Wang, X., Jung, T., and Schröter, J.: The Finite Element Sea Ice- Ocean Model (FESOM) v.1.4: formulation of an ocean general circulation model, Geoscientific Model Development, 7, 663–693, https://doi.org/10.51...

    2014 doi

  32. [73]

    Wedi, N., Sandu, I., Bauer, P., Acosta, M., Andersen, R. C., Andrae, U., Auger, L., Balsamo, G., Baousis, V ., Bennett, V ., Bennett, A., Buontempo, C., Bretonnière, P.-A., Capell, R., Castrillo, M., Chantry, M., Chevallier, M., Correa, R., Davini, P., Denby, L., Doblas-Reyes,...

    2025

  33. [74]

    and Heimbach, P.: Practical global oceanic state estimation, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 230, 197–208, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2006.09.040,

    Wunsch, C. and Heimbach, P.: Practical global oceanic state estimation, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 230, 197–208, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2006.09.040,

    2006 doi

  34. [76]

    T.: Fully multidimensional flux-corrected transport algorithms for fluids, Journal of Computational Physics, 31, 335–362, https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(79)90051-2,

    Zalesak, S. T.: Fully multidimensional flux-corrected transport algorithms for fluids, Journal of Computational Physics, 31, 335–362, https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(79)90051-2,

    doi

  35. [77]

    Zhou, A., Hawkins, L., and Gentine, P.: Proof-of-concept: Using ChatGPT to translate and modernize an Earth system model from Fortran to Python/JAX, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00018, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.00018,

    doi arXiv

  36. [1963]

    N., Wagner, G

    Souza, A. N., Wagner, G. L., Ramadhan, A., Allen, B., Churavy, V ., Schloss, J., Campin, J.-M., Hill, C., Edelman, A., Marshall, J., Flierl, G., and Ferrari, R.: Uncertainty quantification of ocean parameterizations: Application to the K-Profile-Parameterization for penetrativ...

    doi

  37. [1976]

    Shchepetkin, A. F. and McWilliams, J. C.: A method for computing horizontal pressure-gradient force in an oceanic model with a nonaligned vertical coordinate, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 108, 3090, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JC001047,

    doi

  38. [1979]

    A., Law, K

    Iglesias, M. A., Law, K. J. H., and Stuart, A. M.: Ensemble Kalman methods for inverse problems, Inverse Problems, 29, 045 001, https://doi.org/10.1088/0266-5611/29/4/045001,

    doi

  39. [1982]

    34 Scholz, P., Sidorenko, D., Gurses, O., Danilov, S., Koldunov, N., Wang, Q., Sein, D., Smolentseva, M., Rakowsky, N., and Jung, T.: Assess- ment of the Finite-volumE Sea ice–Ocean Model (FESOM2.0) – Part 1: Description of selected key model elements and comparison to its pre...

    2019 doi

  40. [1987]

    Marshall, J., Adcroft, A., Hill, C., Perelman, L., and Heisey, C.: A finite-volume, incompressible Navier–Stokes model for studies of the ocean on parallel computers, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 102, 5753–5766, https://doi.org/10.1029/96JC02775,

    doi

  41. [1988]

    Tsujino, H., Urakawa, S., Nakano, H., et al.: JRA-55 based surface dataset for driving ocean–sea-ice models (JRA55-do), Ocean Modelling, 130, 79–139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2018.07.002,

    2018 doi

  42. [1990]

    Gelbrecht, M., White, A., Bathiany, S., and Boers, N.: Differentiable programming for Earth system modeling, Geoscientific Model Devel- opment, 16, 3123–3135, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3123-2023,

    2023 doi

  43. [1994]

    J., Allen, M

    33 Lea, D. J., Allen, M. R., and Haine, T. W. N.: Sensitivity analysis of the climate of a chaotic system, Tellus A, 52, 523–532, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v52i5.12283,

    doi

  44. [1995]

    Juricke, S., Danilov, S., Koldunov, N., Oliver, M., Sein, D. V ., Sidorenko, D., and Wang, Q.: A kinematic kinetic energy backscat- ter parametrization: From implementation to global ocean simulations, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 12, e2020MS002 175, https://...

    doi

  45. [1997]

    31 EUMETSAT Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility: Global sea ice concentration climate data record 1978–2020 (OSI-450-a), version 3.0, https://doi.org/10.15770/EUM_SAF_OSI_0013,

    1978 doi

  46. [1998]

    Giorgetta, M. A., Sawyer, W., Lapillonne, X., Adamidis, P., Alexeev, D., Clément, V ., et al.: The ICON-A model for direct QBO simulations on GPUs (version icon-cscs:baf28a514), Geoscientific Model Development, 15, 6985–7016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6985-2022,

    2022 doi

  47. [2000]

    M., Levy, M., Adcroft, A

    Griffies, S. M., Levy, M., Adcroft, A. J., Danabasoglu, G., Hallberg, R. W., Jacobsen, D., Large, W. G., and Ringler, T. D.: Theory and numer- ics of the Community Ocean Vertical Mixing (CVMix) project, Tech. rep., NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ, ava...

    2026

  48. [2001]

    Streffing, J., Sidorenko, D., Semmler, T., Zampieri, L., Scholz, P., Andrés-Martínez, M., Koldunov, N., Rackow, T., Kjellsson, J., Goessling, H., Athanase, M., Wang, Q., Hegewald, J., Sein, D. V ., Mu, L., Fladrich, U., Barbi, D., Gierz, P., Danilov, S., Juricke, S., Lohmann, ...

    2022 doi

  49. [2002]

    Koldunov, N

    Koldunov, A., Sidorenko, D., Koldunov, N., Danilov, S., and Scholz, P.: Lorenz Energy Cycle of the Global Eddying Ocean Simu- lated on Meshes With Different Designs and Resolutions, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 18, e2025MS005 551, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025...

    2019 doi arXiv

  50. [2003]

    Shen, C., Appling, A. P., Gentine, P., Bandai, T., Gupta, H., Tartakovsky, A., et al.: Differentiable modelling to unify machine learning and physical models for geosciences, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 4, 552–567, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00450-9,

    doi

  51. [2005]

    32 Heimbach, P., Menemenlis, D., Losch, M., Campin, J.-M., and Hill, C.: On the formulation of sea-ice models. Part 2: Lessons from multi-year adjoint sea-ice export sensitivities through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Ocean Modelling, 33, 145–158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j....

    2010 doi

  52. [2007]

    Yan, F. E., Frezat, H., Le Sommer, J., Mak, J., and Otness, K.: Adjoint-based online learning of two-layer quasi-geostrophic baroclinic turbulence, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 17, e2024MS004 857, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024MS004857,

    doi

  53. [2008]

    J., Danabasoglu, G., Griffies, S

    Van Roekel, L., Adcroft, A. J., Danabasoglu, G., Griffies, S. M., Kauffman, B., Large, W., Levy, M., Reichl, B. G., Ringler, T., and Schmidt, M.: The KPP boundary layer scheme for the ocean: Revisiting its formulation and benchmarking one-dimensional simulations relative to LE...

    doi

  54. [2009]

    G., McWilliams, J

    Large, W. G., McWilliams, J. C., and Doney, S. C.: Oceanic vertical mixing: A review and a model with a nonlocal boundary layer parame- terization, Reviews of Geophysics, 32, 363–403, https://doi.org/10.1029/94RG01872,

    doi

  55. [2010]

    N., Ponte, R

    Forget, G., Campin, J.-M., Heimbach, P., Hill, C. N., Ponte, R. M., and Wunsch, C.: ECCO version 4: an integrated framework for non-linear inverse modeling and global ocean state estimation, Geoscientific Model Development, 8, 3071–3104, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8- 3071-2015,

    2015 doi

  56. [2013]

    Jackett, D. R. and McDougall, T. J.: Minimal adjustment of hydrographic profiles to achieve static stability, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 12, 381–389, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(1995)012<0381:MAOHPT>2.0.CO;2,

    1995 doi

  57. [2014]

    Wang, Q., Wekerle, C., Danilov, S., Wang, X., and Jung, T.: A 4.5 km resolution Arctic Ocean simulation with the global multi-resolution model FESOM 1.4, Geoscientific Model Development, 11, 1229–1255, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1229-2018,

    2018 doi

  58. [2015]

    Danilov, S., Sidorenko, D., Wang, Q., and Jung, T.: The Finite-volumE Sea ice–Ocean Model (FESOM2), Geoscientific Model Development, 10, 765–789, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-765-2017,

    2017 doi

  59. [2017]

    A., Buhendwa, A

    Bezgin, D. A., Buhendwa, A. B., and Adams, N. A.: JAX-Fluids: A fully-differentiable high-order computational fluid dynamics solver for compressible two-phase flows, Computer Physics Communications, 282, 108 527, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2022.108527,

    2022

  60. [2018]

    B.: Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing, SIAM Review, 59, 65–98, https://doi.org/10.1137/141000671,

    Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S., and Shah, V . B.: Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing, SIAM Review, 59, 65–98, https://doi.org/10.1137/141000671,

    doi

  61. [2019]

    Adcroft, A. and Campin, J.-M.: Rescaled height coordinates for accurate representation of free-surface flows in ocean circulation models, Ocean Modelling, 7, 269–284, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2003.09.003,

    2003 doi

  62. [2020]

    Kimmritz, M., Danilov, S., and Losch, M.: On the convergence of the modified elastic–viscous–plastic method for solving the sea ice momentum equation, Journal of Computational Physics, 296, 90–100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2015.04.051,

    2015 doi

  63. [2021]

    L., Eden, C., Kristensen, M

    Häfner, D., Jacobsen, R. L., Eden, C., Kristensen, M. R. B., Jochum, M., Nuterman, R., and Vinter, B.: Veros v0.1 – a fast and versatile ocean simulator in pure Python, Geoscientific Model Development, 11, 3299–3312, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3299-2018,

    2018 doi

  64. [2022]

    M., Nurser, A

    Ferrari, R., Griffies, S. M., Nurser, A. J. G., and Vallis, G. K.: A boundary-value problem for the parameterized mesoscale eddy transport, Ocean Modelling, 32, 143–156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2010.01.004,

    2010 doi

  65. [2023]

    Bouillon, S., Fichefet, T., Legat, V ., and Madec, G.: The elastic–viscous–plastic method revisited, Ocean Modelling, 71, 2–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.05.013,

    2013 doi

  66. [2024]

    Köhl, A. and Willebrand, J.: An adjoint method for the assimilation of statistical characteristics into eddy-resolving ocean models, Tellus A, 54, 406–425, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v54i4.12150,

    doi

  67. [2025]

    M., Arango, H

    Moore, A. M., Arango, H. G., Broquet, G., Powell, B. S., Weaver, A. T., and Zavala-Garay, J.: The Regional Ocean Modeling System (ROMS) 4-dimensional variational data assimilation systems: Part I – System overview and formulation, Progress in Oceanography, 91, 34–49, https://d...

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.