MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412795561 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2025.3594633

Ocean Surface Wind Speed Estimation From GNSS-R Data Using Physics-Informed Attention-Aided Convolutional Neural Network

2025· article· en· W4412795561 on OpenAlexaff
Xin Qiao, Weimin Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGNSS applicationsConvolutional neural networkWind speedRemote sensingComputer scienceArtificial neural networkEstimationMeteorologyArtificial intelligenceGeodesyEnvironmental scienceGlobal Positioning SystemGeologyPhysicsTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate global ocean surface wind speed estimation is crucial for weather forecasting and maritime transportation. Traditional retrieval methods based on Global Navigation Satellite System Reflectometry (GNSS-R) data and deep learning techniques often struggle to capture the complex, nonlinear relationships between GNSS-R observables and wind speed. This challenge is further exacerbated by imbalanced data distributions, which lead to significant underestimation under high wind conditions (15 - 30 m/s, here). To mitigate these issues, this study proposes a novel Physics-Informed Attention-Aided Convolutional Neural Network (PA-CNN). The proposed model incorporates an attention mechanism into the CNN architecture to adaptively focus on the most informative features. In addition, geophysical principles related to GNSS-R signal scattering are integrated with data-driven learning, improving both the interpretability and generalization capability of the network. Moreover, a spatial-temporal smoothing post-processing step is designed to enhance consistency in wind speed retrieval. Extensive experiments using Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite System (CYGNSS) datasets demonstrate that PA-CNN with smoothing outperforms existing deep learning approaches, achieving an overall root mean square difference (RMSD) of 1.38 m/s compared with ERA5 reanalysis data and 1.56 m/s against buoy measurements, highlighting the potential of combining physics-informed modeling with advanced deep-learning techniques for improved ocean surface wind speed retrieval.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207