Topside Electron Density Modeling Using Neural Network and Empirical Model Predictions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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 × 10 9 to 2.5 × 10 10 e − /m 3 , modestly improved performance in disturbed geomagnetic conditions with absolute errors reduced by about 2.5 × 10 9 e − /m 3 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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it