the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Technical Note: Deep-GF-PRM – A physics-informed deep learning framework for parameterizing aerosol hygroscopic growth factor probability density function
Abstract. The hygroscopic properties of atmospheric aerosols are crucial for quantifying their impact on radiation and cloud formation. They are often characterized by a growth factor probability density function (GF-PDF), which can be parameterized as a superposition of multiple Gaussian distributions. Conventionally, nonparametric inversion methods are developed to retrieve GF-PDF from the instrument responses, e.g., measurements of humidified tandem differential mobility analyzer. However, additional parametric fittings are required to extract modal parameters from the inverted GF-PDF, a process that is computationally intensive and susceptible to fitting errors.
In this study, we introduce Deep-GF-PRM, a deep learning framework that parameterizes the GF-PDF modal parameters directly from the instrument responses. The core of Deep-GF-PRM is a physics-informed neural network that embeds the instrument’s kernel function and physical constraints, creating end-to-end mapping of the GF-PDF modal parameters to the instrument response. Trained on a large dataset of synthetic instrument responses generated using a wide range of GF-PDFs and noise levels, Deep-GF-PRM accurately reproduces synthetic GF-PDFs and retrieves modal parameters with higher fidelity than conventional fitting approaches. The model is applied to real-world measurements, and yields results highly consistent with nonparametric inversions. Deep-GF-PRM thus provides an efficient and unsupervised solution for parameterizing aerosol hygroscopic properties.
- Preprint
(2967 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-848', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Mar 2026
- RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-848', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Jul 2026
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-848', Anonymous Referee #3, 03 Jul 2026
Huiping Lu et al. have published a nice pre-print of a technical note (egusphere-2026-848, "Technical Note: Deep-GF-PRM – A physics-informed deep learning framework for parameterizing aerosol hygroscopic growth factor probability density function") detailing their use of a neural-network-based machine learning algorithm to invert observations of aerosol hygroscopic growth factor distributions. The algorithm is compared to field data inverted using a Tikhonov regularization matrix. The paper is reasonably well-written and the presented algorithm reproduces the inverted data quite well. This paper is of interest to the community given the increased uptake of machine learning algorithms. The paper is also a good fit as a technical note of ACP or AMT.
After reading the paper I remain somewhat dubious that the fast nonparametric Tikhonov method, which does not require a great deal of computational power, will be inferior to the deep learning method. I recommend major revision to address this concern and to improve the clarity of the work. If the following points can be addressed by the authors I feel the paper would be suitable for publication.
MAJOR COMMENTS[1] The authors need to give serious consideration to the clarity of the writing. This applies at the paragraph level where machine learning terminology is used, and to the below comments [1a] and [1b].
[1a] The number of models described almost seems to exceed the number of models actually tested. Please consider including a table naming each model and providing a citation, brief description, what data the model is tested with, the figure showing the results, etc.
[1b] It would also be very helpful for the reader if the authors would include flowchart describing the methodology and comparisons between models
[2] Given that the Tikonov, the Gaussian, and the neural network inversion algorithms are compared in this work, and considering that the "ground truth" appears to be the Tikonov-inverted data, the Tikonov result should be included alongside all other models in Figure 4 and in other comparisons as well
[3] The authors have neglected to quantify the computational power needed to run each model, and they also do not quantify how the complexity of the computation scales with the number of points, for each model discussed. This information is important to assess the feasibility of implementing the model at scale and should be included alongside the model descriptions.
[4] The key question that the authors do not address is: what is the use case for the neural-network based calculation, given that the Tikhonov calculations are faster and apparently more accurate
MINOR COMMENTS[5] Lines 38-40: what is the difference between HFIMS and WFIMS? Additional clarification is necessary here
[6] Line 159, 167: The number of hidden layers described in these two paragraphs is inconsistent. Why did the authors choose ten hidden layers (line 159)? He et al. (2016) chose 158 hidden layers.
[7] lines 96-102 and equation 1: The omega's are not defined in the appropriate place. These should be directly below the equation and not in a subsequent paragraph.
[8] Lines 107, 110, 118, 119, and 140: c is not defined. This could be concentration or count, and the reader likely knows the context, but omitting the definition is one of many small things that make this paper difficult to parse.
[8a] Figure 5: Please define c_i and state its units
[9] The statement on line 125 is also this is stated above (it is redundant)
[10] Lines 123-131: This whole paragraph is redundant
[11] Line 259: Please define Adam optimizer and revise the paragraph for a larger audience.
[12] Lines 373-374: The measurements were not available and the "ground truth" here is the Tikhonov - can this be further clarified and stated up front?
[13] Lines 396-402: Please revise paragraph for clarity. Specifically, it seems as though a new calculation is being introduced in the results section. The calculation of the HTDMA GF-PDF (observed) is so simple it may be misleading to refer to it as something that is derived. It is D_i/Ddry for each bin i.
[14] Line 475: The authors provide inadequate citation to the source of the HTDMA data. They should provide an inline citation to ARM and include mention of prior works if possible.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONStypo in top title of figure 5
102: "simplified as:"
413: "noise" not "noises"
412: "stronger" not "strong"
400-401: GF-PDF distribution is redundant, PDF is a distribution function
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-848-RC3
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 740 | 324 | 66 | 1,130 | 97 | 108 |
- HTML: 740
- PDF: 324
- XML: 66
- Total: 1,130
- BibTeX: 97
- EndNote: 108
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The study by Lu et al. developed the Deep-GF-PRM framework for parameterizing GF-PDF in aerosol hygroscopicity studies. Trained by large synthetic instrument responses, this model is shown to quickly retrieve modal parameters that performs no worse than the conventional fitting approaches. Especially, this method advantages in its quick responses and ensured convergence, which is of urgent need for large-scale online data analysis. Overall, this study is well conducted in innovative ways, clearly presented, and presented a promising and powerful new tool. I've only a few minor concerns.
1. In this study, the GFmean is set as the major target of comparison. How about the other parameters (e.g., mode numbers, and detailed f, G, σ for each mode), especially when more than one GF-PDF modes are present due to the external mixing, etc.?
2. Can the authors briefly state / predict the applicability of this methods? For example, when the deviations tend to be larger (except when total counts are low and therefore low SNR)? What kind of parameters / instrumental design changes, or under which scenarios the applicability of this method needs special attention and / or to be re-examined first?