Topside Electron Density Modeling Using Neural Network and Empirical Model Predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We model the electron density in the topside of the ionosphere with an improved machine learning (ML) model and compare it to existing empirical models, specifically the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) and the Empirical‐Canadian High Arctic Ionospheric Model (E‐CHAIM). In prior work, an artificial neural network (NN) was developed and trained on two solar cycles worth of Defense Meteorological Satellite Program data (113 satellite‐years), along with global drivers and indices to predict topside electron density. In this paper, we highlight improvements made to this NN, and present a detailed comparison of the new model to E‐CHAIM and IRI as a function of location, geomagnetic condition, time of year, and solar local time. We discuss precision and accuracy metrics to better understand model strengths and weaknesses. The updated neural network shows improved mid‐latitude performance with absolute errors lower than the IRI by 2.5 × 109 to 2.5 × 1010 e−/m3, modestly improved performance in disturbed geomagnetic conditions with absolute errors reduced by about 2.5 × 109 e−/m3 at high Kp compared to the IRI, and high Kp percentage errors reduced by >50% when compared to E‐CHAIM.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".