Back

Conditional source attribution at plankton bloom onset: Identifiability and sharp bounds under environmental forcing

Caputi, L.

2026-08-18 ecology
10.64898/2026.08.13.744670 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Can observations distinguish a bloom supplied from within a study volume from one supplied across its boundary? We develop a theoretical framework for that question at plankton bloom onset, conditional on a predeclared, observed or calibrated onset event and a declared set of environmental paths, biological responses, and model forms. The estimand follows source-event labels through forcing-dependent survival and genotype-specific growth. Its central certificate asks whether the local onset fraction is invariant over every source history that produces the same time-expanded observation record. For polyhedral history fibers, a Charnes-Cooper transformation computes both sharp dynamic-data endpoints as linear programs. When each source instead has a fixed normalized onset signature, the certificate reduces to a row-space test; uncertain signatures require a joint lifted program. For a finite compatible scenario ensemble, admissible fractions are the union across scenarios, and a point is justified only when every nonempty scenario gives the same singleton. A synthetic two-genotype witness gives the same observed total but local fractions of 2/3 and 1/3 under reversed forcing-response gains. The observer, mixture, and optimization ingredients are established; the contribution is their target-specific synthesis around source at onset. The framework is diagnostic rather than predictive. It specifies what a study must measure--local sources, boundary inflow, forcing, response, timing, and carrier signatures on one declared window--and returns an interval when missing components have justified bounds, including [0, 1] when they remain unconstrained.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.