Application of DINCAE to Reconstruct the Gaps in Chlorophyll-a Satellite Observations in the South China Sea and West Philippine Sea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Data Interpolating Empirical Orthogonal Functions (DINEOF) method has demonstrated usability and accuracy for filling spatial gaps in remote sensing datasets. In this study, we conducted the reconstruction of the chlorophyll-a concentration (Chl-a) data using a convolutional neural networks model called Data-Interpolating Convolutional Auto-Encoder (DINCAE), and we compared its performance with that of DINEOF. Furthermore, the cloud-free sea surface temperature (SST) was used as a phytoplankton dynamics predictor for the Chl-a reconstruction. Finally, four reconstruction schemes were implemented: DINCAE (Chl-a only), DINCAE (Chl-a and SST), DINEOF (Chl-a only), and DINEOF (Chl-a and SST), denoted rec1, rec2, rec3, and rec4 respectively. To quantitatively evaluate the accuracy of these reconstruction schemes, both the cross-validation and in situ data were used. The study domain was chosen to be the Northern South China Sea (SCS) and West Philippine Sea (WPS), bounded by 115–125°E and 16–24°N to test the model performance for the reconstruction of Chl-a under different Chl-a controlling mechanisms. The in situ validation showed that rec1 performs best among the four reconstruction schemes, and that adding SST into the Chl-a reconstruction cannot improve the reconstruction results. However, for cross validation, adding SST can slightly improve spatial distributions of the root mean square error (RMSE) between the reconstructed data and the original data, especially over the SCS continental shelf. Furthermore, the potential of DINCAE prediction is confirmed in this paper; thus, the trained DINCAE model can be re-applied to reconstruct other missing data, and more importantly, it can also be re-trained using the reconstructed data, thereby further improving reconstruction results. Another consideration is efficiency; with similar reconstruction conditions, DINCAE is 5–10 times faster than DINEOF.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".