气候模型开发者如何处理bug

IF 8.2 1区 地球科学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Earths Future Pub Date : 2025-08-09 DOI:10.1029/2025EF006318
Ulrike Proske, Lieke A. Melsen
{"title":"气候模型开发者如何处理bug","authors":"Ulrike Proske,&nbsp;Lieke A. Melsen","doi":"10.1029/2025EF006318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>General circulation models (GCMs) are not only powerful tools to understand Earth's climate system and to forecast the weather. They are also large software programs written by humans. As such, they contain coding mistakes, so-called bugs. Researchers communicate results generated with GCMs and document new model versions, but seldom explicitly communicate the bugs they find in their models, let alone the practices surrounding them. This study portrays practices around bugs that were found during recent ICON development, and the workflow from getting a suspicion to fixing and communicating the bug. Eleven qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with domain scientists and scientific programmers involved in ICON development. The interviews detail the workflow for dealing with bugs, highlighting that it is only partly standardized. For example, scientific testing is complicated by the fact that there is no absolute truth in terms of results that the model could be tested against. Thus testing resists standardization, so that dealing with bugs remains a laborious process. Being confronted and dealing with bugs, modelers aim for a model that is “good enough” rather than perfect. This stance is pragmatic and relaxes exuberant expectations for GCMs, especially considering their bugs. However, the goal of “good enough” is troubling with regard to GCMs' use as universal tools, with high societal stakes. Who decides that the model is “good enough,” and what for?</p>","PeriodicalId":48748,"journal":{"name":"Earths Future","volume":"13 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2025EF006318","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Climate Model Developers Deal With Bugs\",\"authors\":\"Ulrike Proske,&nbsp;Lieke A. Melsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1029/2025EF006318\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>General circulation models (GCMs) are not only powerful tools to understand Earth's climate system and to forecast the weather. They are also large software programs written by humans. As such, they contain coding mistakes, so-called bugs. Researchers communicate results generated with GCMs and document new model versions, but seldom explicitly communicate the bugs they find in their models, let alone the practices surrounding them. This study portrays practices around bugs that were found during recent ICON development, and the workflow from getting a suspicion to fixing and communicating the bug. Eleven qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with domain scientists and scientific programmers involved in ICON development. The interviews detail the workflow for dealing with bugs, highlighting that it is only partly standardized. For example, scientific testing is complicated by the fact that there is no absolute truth in terms of results that the model could be tested against. Thus testing resists standardization, so that dealing with bugs remains a laborious process. Being confronted and dealing with bugs, modelers aim for a model that is “good enough” rather than perfect. This stance is pragmatic and relaxes exuberant expectations for GCMs, especially considering their bugs. However, the goal of “good enough” is troubling with regard to GCMs' use as universal tools, with high societal stakes. Who decides that the model is “good enough,” and what for?</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Earths Future\",\"volume\":\"13 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2025EF006318\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Earths Future\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025EF006318\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earths Future","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025EF006318","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大气环流模式(GCMs)不仅是了解地球气候系统和预测天气的有力工具。它们也是由人类编写的大型软件程序。因此,它们包含编码错误,即所谓的bug。研究人员交流使用gcm生成的结果并记录新的模型版本,但很少明确地交流他们在模型中发现的错误,更不用说围绕它们的实践了。本研究描述了在最近的ICON开发过程中发现的错误的实践,以及从怀疑到修复和沟通错误的工作流程。对参与ICON开发的领域科学家和科学程序员进行了11次定性深入访谈。访谈详细介绍了处理bug的工作流程,强调它只是部分标准化。例如,科学测试是复杂的,因为就模型可以测试的结果而言,没有绝对的真理。因此,测试抵制标准化,因此处理bug仍然是一个费力的过程。面对和处理错误,建模者的目标是一个“足够好”的模型,而不是完美的模型。这种立场是务实的,并且放松了对gcm的过度期望,特别是考虑到它们的bug。然而,“足够好”的目标对于gcm作为具有高社会风险的通用工具的使用是令人不安的。谁决定这个模型“足够好”,为什么?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

How Climate Model Developers Deal With Bugs

How Climate Model Developers Deal With Bugs

How Climate Model Developers Deal With Bugs

General circulation models (GCMs) are not only powerful tools to understand Earth's climate system and to forecast the weather. They are also large software programs written by humans. As such, they contain coding mistakes, so-called bugs. Researchers communicate results generated with GCMs and document new model versions, but seldom explicitly communicate the bugs they find in their models, let alone the practices surrounding them. This study portrays practices around bugs that were found during recent ICON development, and the workflow from getting a suspicion to fixing and communicating the bug. Eleven qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with domain scientists and scientific programmers involved in ICON development. The interviews detail the workflow for dealing with bugs, highlighting that it is only partly standardized. For example, scientific testing is complicated by the fact that there is no absolute truth in terms of results that the model could be tested against. Thus testing resists standardization, so that dealing with bugs remains a laborious process. Being confronted and dealing with bugs, modelers aim for a model that is “good enough” rather than perfect. This stance is pragmatic and relaxes exuberant expectations for GCMs, especially considering their bugs. However, the goal of “good enough” is troubling with regard to GCMs' use as universal tools, with high societal stakes. Who decides that the model is “good enough,” and what for?

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Earths Future
Earths Future ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCESGEOSCIENCES, MULTIDI-GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
7.30%
发文量
260
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Earth’s Future: A transdisciplinary open access journal, Earth’s Future focuses on the state of the Earth and the prediction of the planet’s future. By publishing peer-reviewed articles as well as editorials, essays, reviews, and commentaries, this journal will be the preeminent scholarly resource on the Anthropocene. It will also help assess the risks and opportunities associated with environmental changes and challenges.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信