Ionospheric Electron Density and Temperature Profiles Using Ionosonde-like Data and Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting the behaviour of the Earth’s ionosphere is crucial for the ground-based and spaceborne technologies that rely on it. This paper presents a novel way of inferring ionospheric electron density profiles and electron temperature profiles using machine learning. The analysis is based on the Nearest Neighbour (NNB) and Radial Basis Function (RBF) regression models. Synthetic data sets used to train and validate these two inference models are constructed using the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI 2020) model with randomly chosen years (1987–2022), months (1–12), days (1–31), latitudes (−60 to 60°), longitudes (0, 360°), and times (0–23 h), at altitudes ranging from 95 to 600 km. The NNB and RBF models use the constructed ionosonde-like profiles to infer complete ISR-like profiles. The results show that the inference of ionospheric electron density profiles is better with the NNB model than with the RBF model, while the RBF model is better at inferring the electron temperature profiles. A major and unexpected finding of this research is the ability of the two models to infer full electron temperature profiles that are not provided by ionosondes using the same truncated electron density data set used to infer electron density profiles. NNB and RBF models generally over- or underestimate the inferred electron density and electron temperature values, especially at higher altitudes, but they tend to produce good matches at lower altitudes. Additionally, maximum absolute relative errors for electron density and temperature inferences are found at higher altitudes for both NNB and RBF models.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".