Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3880
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3880
30 Oct 2026
 | 30 Oct 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).

Calibration Is Not Enough: TAP-Bathy v1.0, a Three-Axis Protocol for Evaluating Spatial Uncertainty in Bathymetry

Xinye Cui, Houpu Li, Xin Xiong, Shaofeng Bian, and Guojun Zhai

Abstract. Calibration is the standard yardstick for spatial uncertainty quantification (UQ), but it is insufficient. On the Amazon Fan, ordinary-kriging variance achieves excellent calibration (ECE = 4.1%) yet carries negligible spatial information(rpooled = +0.16). On the Blake Escarpment, kriging variance yields below-random block prioritization under the locked evaluation protocol. Motivated by this disconnect, we propose a three-axis protocol for evaluating spatial UQ: calibration, an exact within/cross-patch decomposition of the error–uncertainty correlation, and operational prioritization at a fixed resurvey budget. Applying the protocol to deep-sea bathymetric reconstruction across three terrains reveals three failure modes that any single axis misses – calibrated-but-uninformative uncertainty, statistically significant but operationally negligible withinpatch signals, and cross-region ranking reversal via Simpson’s paradox. Learned σ carries reliable cross-patch information(rcross = 0.08–0.50, locked evaluation protocol; confidence intervals at patch level) and concentrates 1.5–3× the random errorat 10% block-level resurvey budgets and remains above-random at 25%. A deep ensemble produces a near-identical primary endpoint, with the broad failure-mode pattern robust to the epistemic-uncertainty estimator, though secondary operational capture is unstable on the small Region 009 evaluation set. A pre-registered prospective test on an unseen fan/plain region yielded rcross = 0.358 inside the predicted interval, consistent with retained cross-patch informativeness on new terrain. An eight-region prospective test cleanly falsified the strong (sign-reversal) form of a terrain-coupling prediction. The contribution is a reproducible, scale-aware evaluation protocol: we show how to assess spatial UQ, not that one estimator universally wins.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Xinye Cui, Houpu Li, Xin Xiong, Shaofeng Bian, and Guojun Zhai

Status: open (until 25 Dec 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Xinye Cui, Houpu Li, Xin Xiong, Shaofeng Bian, and Guojun Zhai
Xinye Cui, Houpu Li, Xin Xiong, Shaofeng Bian, and Guojun Zhai

Viewed

Total article views: 27 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
25 1 1 27 1 1
  • HTML: 25
  • PDF: 1
  • XML: 1
  • Total: 27
  • BibTeX: 1
  • EndNote: 1
Views and downloads (calculated since 30 Oct 2026)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 30 Oct 2026)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 27 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 27 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 31 Oct 2026
Download
Short summary
Most seafloor maps hide how wrong they might be. We built a three-part test: are warning scores honest, do they match where errors lie, and can they guide where to survey next? Across varied ocean terrain, a learning-based method flagged error-prone blocks far better than chance, while older scores looked trustworthy but gave poor guidance. This matters for the global push to map the ocean floor. Our contribution is a framework for testing spatial uncertainty, not a claim that one method wins.
Share