Biogeochemistry-Informed Neural Network (BINN) for Improving Accuracy of Model Prediction and Scientific Understanding of Soil Organic Carbon
arXiv:2502.00672v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The increasing availability of large-scale observational data and the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) provide unprecedented opportunities to enhance our understanding of the global carbon cycle and other biogeochemical processes. However, retrieving mechanistic knowledge from these large-scale data remains a challenge. Here, we develop a Biogeochemistry-Informed Neural Network (BINN) that seamlessly integrates a vectorized process-based soil carbon cycle model (i.e., Community Land Model version 5, CLM5) into a neural — Haodi Xu, Joshua Fan, Feng Tao, Lifen Jiang, Fengqi You, Benjamin Z. Houlton, Ying Sun, Carla P. Gomes, Yiqi Luo
View PDF
Abstract:The increasing availability of large-scale observational data and the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) provide unprecedented opportunities to enhance our understanding of the global carbon cycle and other biogeochemical processes. However, retrieving mechanistic knowledge from these large-scale data remains a challenge. Here, we develop a Biogeochemistry-Informed Neural Network (BINN) that seamlessly integrates a vectorized process-based soil carbon cycle model (i.e., Community Land Model version 5, CLM5) into a neural network (NN) structure to examine mechanisms governing soil organic carbon (SOC) storage from big data. BINN demonstrates high accuracy in retrieving biogeochemical parameter values from synthetic data in a parameter recovery experiment. Furthermore, by incorporating Monte Carlo (MC) dropout to generate posterior distributions, we demonstrate that BINN can effectively quantify uncertainty in estimated parameters. We use BINN to predict six major processes (or components in process-based models) regulating the soil carbon cycle from 25,925 observed SOC profiles across the contiguous US and compare them with the same processes previously retrieved by a Bayesian inference-based PROcess-guided deep learning and DAta-driven modeling (PRODA) approach. The good agreement between the spatial patterns retrieved by BINN and PRODA (average correlation coefficient = 0.86) suggests that BINN's ability of capturing mechanistic knowledge is consistent with the established Bayesian-based methods. Additionally, the integration of neural networks and process-based models in BINN improves computational efficiency by more than 50 times over PRODA. We conclude that BINN is an efficient framework that harnesses the power of both AI, large-scale data, and process-based modeling to understand large scale soil carbon cycle.
Comments: 65 pages, 15 figures
Subjects:
Geophysics (physics.geo-ph); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2502.00672 [physics.geo-ph]
(or arXiv:2502.00672v3 [physics.geo-ph] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.00672
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
Submission history
From: Haodi Xu [view email] [v1] Sun, 2 Feb 2025 05:02:42 UTC (1,392 KB) [v2] Thu, 6 Feb 2025 18:41:16 UTC (7,692 KB) [v3] Thu, 26 Mar 2026 20:22:29 UTC (2,386 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article

Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
researchpaperarxiv
New Rowhammer attack can grant kernel-level control on Nvidia workstation GPUs
A study from researchers at UNC Chapel Hill and Georgia Tech shows that GDDR6-based Rowhammer attacks can grant kernel-level access to Linux systems equipped with GPUs based on Nvidia's Ampere and Ada Lovelace architectures. The vulnerability appears significantly more severe than what was outlined in a paper last year. Read Entire Article
![[D] ICML Reviewer Acknowledgement](https://d2xsxph8kpxj0f.cloudfront.net/310419663032563854/konzwo8nGf8Z4uZsMefwMr/default-img-matrix-rain-CvjLrWJiXfamUnvj5xT9J9.webp)
[D] ICML Reviewer Acknowledgement
Hi, I'm a little confused about ICML discussion period Does the period for reviewer acknowledging responses have already ended? One of the four reviewers did not present any answer to a paper of mine. Do you know if the reviewer can still change their score before April 7th? There is a reviewer comment that I will answer on Monday. Will the reviewer be able to update the score after seeing my answer? Thanks! submitted by /u/Massive_Horror9038 [link] [comments]

Considerations for growing the pie
Recently some friends and I were comparing growing the pie interventions to an increasing our friends' share of the pie intervention, and at first we mostly missed some general considerations against the latter type. 1. Decision-theoretic considerations The world is full of people with different values working towards their own ends; each of them can choose to use their resources to increase the total size of the pie or to increase their share of the pie. All of them would significantly prefer a world in which resources were used to increase the size of the pie, and this leads to a number [of] compelling justifications for each individual to cooperate. . . . by increasing the size of the pie we create a world which is better for people on average, and from behind the veil of ignorance we s
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Research Papers

New Rowhammer attack can grant kernel-level control on Nvidia workstation GPUs
A study from researchers at UNC Chapel Hill and Georgia Tech shows that GDDR6-based Rowhammer attacks can grant kernel-level access to Linux systems equipped with GPUs based on Nvidia's Ampere and Ada Lovelace architectures. The vulnerability appears significantly more severe than what was outlined in a paper last year. Read Entire Article
![[D] ICML Reviewer Acknowledgement](https://d2xsxph8kpxj0f.cloudfront.net/310419663032563854/konzwo8nGf8Z4uZsMefwMr/default-img-matrix-rain-CvjLrWJiXfamUnvj5xT9J9.webp)
[D] ICML Reviewer Acknowledgement
Hi, I'm a little confused about ICML discussion period Does the period for reviewer acknowledging responses have already ended? One of the four reviewers did not present any answer to a paper of mine. Do you know if the reviewer can still change their score before April 7th? There is a reviewer comment that I will answer on Monday. Will the reviewer be able to update the score after seeing my answer? Thanks! submitted by /u/Massive_Horror9038 [link] [comments]

Considerations for growing the pie
Recently some friends and I were comparing growing the pie interventions to an increasing our friends' share of the pie intervention, and at first we mostly missed some general considerations against the latter type. 1. Decision-theoretic considerations The world is full of people with different values working towards their own ends; each of them can choose to use their resources to increase the total size of the pie or to increase their share of the pie. All of them would significantly prefer a world in which resources were used to increase the size of the pie, and this leads to a number [of] compelling justifications for each individual to cooperate. . . . by increasing the size of the pie we create a world which is better for people on average, and from behind the veil of ignorance we s


Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!