Comparison of Machine Learning Inversion Methods for Salinity in the Central Indian Ocean Based on SMOS Satellite Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the central Indian Ocean (60°–95°E, 0°–37°S) has been selected as the research area, and Argo salinity data are used as the measured values. The Catboost algorithm is introduced for the first time to retrieve sea surface salinity, and a comparison is made with the traditional artificial neural network (ANN) and random forest (RF) machine learning algorithm. The results show that: (1) Through linear fitting with the Argo salinity, the R2 of the three machine learning methods are 0.9299, 0.88 and 0.83, respectively. The corresponding RMSE were 0.2360, 0.3004, and 0.3156 psu, and MAE were 0.1816, 0.2486, and 0.2641 psu, respectively. (2) The spatial distribution of salinity of Argo and SMOS was compared with the inversion results of the model. It was found that the salinity of the sea area was lower at (83°–88°E, 24°–27°S) and (68°–72°E, 17°–20°S), and higher at 30°–35° south latitude, showing consistent with Argo. (3) The stability of the model was independently verified using the data from January to March 2020, and it was found that the R2 of the RF model shows the best stability, while the R2 of the ANN model shows the worst stability.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".