Comparison of Box-Air-Mass-Factors and Radiances for Multiple-Axis Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy (MAX-DOAS) Geometries calculated from different UV/visible Radiative Transfer Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The results of a comparison exercise of radiative transfer models (RTM) of various international research groups for Multiple AXis Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy (MAX-DOAS) viewing geometry are presented. In contrast to previous comparison exercises, box-air-mass-factors (box-AMFs) for various atmospheric height layers were modelled, which describe the sensitivity of the measurements as a function of altitude. In addition, radiances were calculated allowing the identification of potential errors, which might be overlooked if only AMFs are compared. Accurate modelling of radiances is also a prerequisite for the correct interpretation of satellite observations, for which the received radiance can strongly vary across the large ground pixels, and might be also important for the retrieval of aerosol properties as a future application of MAX-DOAS. The comparison exercises included different wavelengths and atmospheric scenarios (with and without aerosols). The results were systematically investigated with respect to their dependence on the telescope's elevation angle and the azimuth angle. For both dependencies, a strong and systematic influence of aerosol scattering was found indicating that from MAX-DOAS observations also information on atmospheric aerosols can be retrieved. During the various iterations of the exercises, the results from all models showed a substantial convergence, and the final data sets agreed for most cases within about 5%. Larger deviations were found for cases with low atmospheric optical depth, for which the photon path lengths along the line of sight of the instrument can become very large. The differences occurred between models including full spherical geometry and those using only plane parallel approximation indicating that the correct treatment of the Earth's sphericity becomes indispensable. The modelled box-AMFs constitute an universal data base for the calculation of arbitrary (total) AMFs by simple convolution with a given trace gas concentration profile. Together with the modelled radiances and the specified settings for the various exercises, they can serve as test cases for future RTM developments.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".