Sea Ice Classification Using Cryosat-2 Altimeter Data by Optimal Classifier–Feature Assembly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sea ice type is one of the most sensitive variables in Arctic ice monitoring and detailed information about it is essential for ice situation evaluation, vessel navigation, and climate prediction. Many machine-learning methods including deep learning can be employed for ice-type detection, and most classifiers tend to prefer different feature combinations. In order to find the optimal classifier-feature assembly (OCF) for sea ice classification, it is necessary to assess their performance differences. The objective of this letter is to make a recommendation for the OCF for sea ice classification using Cryosat-2 (CS-2) data. Six classifiers including convolutional neural network (CNN), Bayesian, K nearest-neighbor (KNN), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and back propagation neural network (BPNN) were studied. CS-2 altimeter data of November 2015 and May 2016 in the whole Arctic were used. The overall accuracy was estimated using multivalidation to evaluate the performances of individual classifiers with different feature combinations. Overall, RF achieved a mean accuracy of 89.15%, followed by Bayesian, SVM, and BPNN (~86%), outperforming the worst (CNN and KNN) by 7%. Trailing-edge width (TeW) and leading-edge width (LeW) were the most important features, and feature combination of TeW, LeW, Sigma0, maximum of the returned power waveform (MAX), and pulse peakiness (PP) was the best choice. RF with feature combination of TeW, LeW, Sigma0, MAX, and PP was finally selected as the OCF for sea ice classification and the results that demonstrated this method achieved a mean accuracy of 91.45%, which outperformed the other state-of-art methods by 9%.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".