An Alternative Approach to Mapping Thermophysical Units from Martian Thermal Inertia and Albedo Data Using a Combination of Unsupervised Classification Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermal inertia and albedo provide information on the distribution of surface materials on Mars. These parameters have been mapped globally on Mars by the Thermal Emission Spectrometer (TES) onboard the Mars Global Surveyor. Two-dimensional clusters of thermal inertia and albedo reflect the thermophysical attributes of the dominant materials on the surface. In this paper three automated, non-deterministic, algorithmic classification methods are employed for defining thermophysical units: Expectation Maximisation of a Gaussian Mixture Model; Iterative Self-Organizing Data Analysis Technique (ISODATA); and Maximum Likelihood. We analyse the behaviour of the thermophysical classes resulting from the three classifiers, operating on the 2007 TES thermal inertia and albedo datasets. Producing a rigorous mapping of thermophysical classes at ~3 km/pixel resolution remains important for constraining the geologic processes that have shaped the Martian surface on a regional scale, and for choosing appropriate landing sites. The results from applying these algorithms are compared to geologic maps, surface data from lander missions, features derived from imaging, and previous classifications of thermophysical units which utilized manual (and potentially more time consuming) classification methods. These comparisons comprise data suitable for validation of our classifications. Our work shows that a combination of the algorithms—ISODATA and Maximum Likelihood—optimises the sensitivity to the underlying dataspace, and that new information on Martian surface materials can be obtained by using these methods. We demonstrate that the algorithms used here can be applied to define a finer partitioning of albedo and thermal inertia for a more detailed mapping of surface materials, grain sizes and thermal behaviour of the Martian surface and shallow subsurface, at the ~3 km scale.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".