MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Imbalanced Multi-layer Cloud Classification with Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) and CloudSat/CALIPSO Data

2022· article· en· W4320024064 on OpenAlexaff
Lei Ding, Roberto Corizzo, Colin Bellinger, N. Ching, Spencer Login, Rodrigo Yepez-Lopez, Jie Gong, Dong L. Wu

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Security AgencyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCloud computingRandom forestLidarComputer scienceClassifier (UML)PerceptronBaseline (sea)Deep learningResamplingRemote sensingCloud coverCloud fractionArtificial intelligenceEnvironmental scienceArtificial neural networkGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clouds at different altitudes play different roles in Earth’s climate. Comprehensive understanding of overlapping clouds is important for climate and weather prediction. The East Pacific region is where El Niño and La Niña originate and where multi-layer clouds frequently occur. The overlap of clouds at different altitudes in this region increases the classification complexity for cloud-based climatological studies. Unlike prior work in cloud layer classification that assumes single layer or two-layer of clouds, in this work, we consider multi-layer cloud classification with 8 cloud-level classes (clear-sky, high, middle, low, high+middle, high+low, middle+low, high+middle+low). We develop and analyze machine learning models on features extracted from satellite images from the East Pacific regions collected by GOES Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI). These are used to classify CloudSat/CALIPSO observed multi-layer clouds. Due to the imbalanced nature of the data, we investigate the adoption of conventional resampling methods, as well as deep learning methods with data augmentation. In our experiments, we utilize the random forest classifier and Multilayer perceptron classifier with data augmentation methods to reduce the class imbalance during training. With these approaches, we achieve a classification accuracy of 83.6% without exploiting any ancillary information.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.251
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.083 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data)Same topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207