the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
DDA-BNN v1.0: A Morphology-Aware Surrogate Model for the Optical Properties of Black Carbon–Containing Particles
Abstract. Black carbon (BC) is the most strongly absorbing component of atmospheric aerosol and significantly impacts Earth's energy balance. The optical properties of BC-containing particles depend on particle-level variability in size, chemical composition, and internal morphology. Such particle-level details are not easily represented in large-scale atmospheric models. Existing parameterizations typically assume idealized particle geometries (e.g., homogeneous spheres or concentric core–shell spheres) and homogeneous mixing, which can yield biased predictions and provide no quantitative estimate of model-form uncertainty at the single-particle level. In this work, we present a probabilistic framework for predicting the optical properties of individual BC-containing particles using a hybrid Bayesian neural network (BNN) model trained on numerically exact discrete dipole approximation (DDA) simulations. The hybrid BNN is a flexible combination of deterministic and Bayesian layers allowing for more realistic treatment of particle optical properties and quantification of uncertainty. The hybrid BNN model predicts extinction efficiency, single-scattering albedo, and asymmetry parameter and returns predictive uncertainty that can be decomposed into aleatoric (data-driven variability) and epistemic (uncertainty due to limited training coverage) components. We show that the hybrid BNN outperforms homogeneous-sphere and core–shell Mie approximations for calculating extinction and scattering-sensitive quantities (Qext, SSA and g), while maintaining comparable accuracy for absorption-related metrics. We further demonstrate how epistemic uncertainty highlights under-sampled regions of particle parameter space, enabling targeted design of future DDA simulations that most effectively reduce model uncertainty. This uncertainty-aware surrogate provides a practical pathway for incorporating realistically complex particle morphologies into parameterizations of aerosol optical properties, which will ultimately improve the reliability of model-based assessments of BC impacts on the atmosphere.
- Preprint
(6382 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 21 May 2026)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1270 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 28 Mar 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Laura Fierce, 30 Mar 2026
reply
We have revised the manuscript to comply with the GMD Code and Data Policy.
The DDA-BNN codebase, including the training pipeline and inference tools, is publicly available at:
https://github.com/pnnl/DDA-BNN (MIT License).The exact version of the code used in this study has been permanently archived on Zenodo and assigned a DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19324375
(https://zenodo.org/records/19324375)The training dataset used in this work is publicly available and has also been permanently archived on Zenodo with a DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19324185
(https://zenodo.org/records/19324185)We have updated the “Code and Data Availability” section of the revised manuscript to include these repository links and DOIs, and have added the corresponding citations to the bibliography. All code and data are publicly accessible at the links above for the duration of the discussion phase.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1270-AC1 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 30 Mar 2026
reply
Dear authors,
Thanks for addressing this issue so quickly. I have checked the repositories and we can consider now the current version of your manuscript in compliance with the code policy of the journal.
Juan A. Añel
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1270-CEC2
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 30 Mar 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Laura Fierce, 30 Mar 2026
reply
-
CC1: 'Details of the DDA simulations', Maxim A. Yurkin, 03 Apr 2026
reply
The authors have performed a lot of DDA simulations and carefully described the training and validation starting from the DDA dataset (available at Zenodo). However, I couldn't find a description of the ADDA parameters used for simulations. It would be great to specify them for the overall reproducibility, including the ADDA version, DDA formulation, and discretization. Mentioning that some parameters are set to default values will also be fine.
Putting all raw DDA output online would probably be an overkill, but the authors may consider sharing the scripts, which perform these runs (to build a dataset). They will necessarily contain all the command line options for ADDA. Total or per run computational requirements of the DDA can also be interesting for readers.
Related question is that of the uncertainty of the DDA simulations (expected errors). Is there any estimate on that, at least for a few representative cases? It can be obtained, e.g., by several steps of discretization refinement for the same problem. I suspect, that the corresponding DDA errors are small enough to not influence any conclusions or further steps in the manuscript. Still, it would be great to quantify them.
The latter seems especially natural, since the authors already perform an advanced error analysis, separating aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. The DDA uncertainty probably fall into aleatoric class, but I am not sure if it needs any special consideration.
Finally, I have a minor stylistic note concerning the name of the ADDA code. The official guideline is not to deabbreviate it - see https://github.com/adda-team/adda/wiki/FAQ#what-is-the-official-name-of-the-code-what-does-a-stands-for . In other words, the standard naming is just ADDA.
Similar aspects were recently discussed in another GMD paper - https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-887-2026 .
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1270-CC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 66 | 14 | 12 | 92 | 8 | 10 |
- HTML: 66
- PDF: 14
- XML: 12
- Total: 92
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
In your manuscript, you do not provide a repository containing the data used and produced in your work. The GMD review and publication process depends on reviewers and community commentators being able to access, during the discussion phase, the code and data on which a manuscript depends, and on ensuring the provenance of replicability of the published papers for years after their publication. Please, therefore, publish your data in one of the appropriate repositories and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and a permanent identifier for it (e.g. DOI)) as soon as possible. We cannot have manuscripts under discussion that do not comply with our policy.
The 'Code and Data Availability’ section must also be modified to cite the new repository locations, and corresponding references added to the bibliography.
I must note that if you do not fix this problem, we cannot continue with the peer-review process or accept your manuscript for publication in GMD.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor