4.7 Article

A Graph Theoretical Intercomparison of Atmospheric Chemical Mechanisms

Journal

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 48, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2020GL090481

Keywords

atmospheric chemistry; chemical mechanism; graph theory

Funding

  1. Linus Pauling Distinguished Postdoctoral Fellowship program
  2. Exascale Computing Project [17-SC-20-SC]
  3. National Nuclear Security
  4. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Graph-theoretical methods have shown their importance in studying different atmospheric chemical mechanisms, revealing similarities and differences between them, and providing new possibilities for scientific discoveries.
Graph-theoretical methods have revolutionized the exploration of complex systems across scientific disciplines. Here, we demonstrate their applicability to the investigation and comparison of three widely used atmospheric chemical mechanisms of varying complexity: the Master Chemical Mechanism v3.3, GEOS-Chem v12.6, and the Super-Fast chemical mechanism. We investigate these mechanisms using a class of graphical models known as species-reaction graphs and find similarities between these chemical reaction systems and other systems arising in nature. Several graph theoretical properties are consistent across mechanisms, including strong dynamical system disequilibrium and clustering of chemically related species. This formalism also reveals key differences between the mechanisms, some of which have characteristics inconsistent with domain knowledge; e.g., isoprene and peroxy radical chemistry exhibit substantially different graph properties in each mechanism. Graph-theoretical methods provide a promising set of tools for investigating atmospheric chemical mechanisms, complementing existing computational approaches, and potentially opening new avenues for scientific discovery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available