Sea Ice Classification Using Cryosat-2 Altimeter Data by Optimal Classifier–Feature Assembly

Sea ice type is one of the most sensitive variables in Arctic ice monitoring and detailed information about it is essential for ice situation evaluation, vessel navigation, and climate prediction. Many machine-learning methods including deep learning can be employed for ice-type detection, and most classifiers tend to prefer different feature combinations. In order to find the optimal classifier–feature assembly (OCF) for sea ice classification, it is necessary to assess their performance differences. The objective of this letter is to make a recommendation for the OCF for sea ice classification using Cryosat-2 (CS-2) data. Six classifiers including convolutional neural network (CNN), Bayesian, $K$ nearest-neighbor (KNN), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and back propagation neural network (BPNN) were studied. CS-2 altimeter data of November 2015 and May 2016 in the whole Arctic were used. The overall accuracy was estimated using multivalidation to evaluate the performances of individual classifiers with different feature combinations. Overall, RF achieved a mean accuracy of 89.15%, followed by Bayesian, SVM, and BPNN (~86%), outperforming the worst (CNN and KNN) by 7%. Trailing-edge width (TeW) and leading-edge width (LeW) were the most important features, and feature combination of TeW, LeW, Sigma0, maximum of the returned power waveform (MAX), and pulse peakiness (PP) was the best choice. RF with feature combination of TeW, LeW, Sigma0, MAX, and PP was finally selected as the OCF for sea ice classification and the results that demonstrated this method achieved a mean accuracy of 91.45%, which outperformed the other state-of-art methods by 9%.

[1]  L. Phalippou,et al.  CryoSat: A mission to determine the fluctuations in Earth’s land and marine ice fields ☆ , 2006 .

[2]  Mark R. Drinkwater,et al.  Radar altimetric studies of polar ice , 1987 .

[3]  Linlin Xu,et al.  A comparative study of different classification techniques for marine oil spill identification using RADARSAT-1 imagery , 2014 .

[4]  Achim Zeileis,et al.  Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[5]  W. Emery,et al.  A younger, thinner Arctic ice cover: Increased potential for rapid, extensive sea‐ice loss , 2007 .

[6]  R. Holyer,et al.  Estimation of sea ice type and concentration by linear unmixing of Geosat altimeter waveforms , 1990 .

[7]  Jie Zhang,et al.  Sea ice type classification based on random forest machine learning with Cryosat-2 altimeter data , 2017, 2017 International Workshop on Remote Sensing with Intelligent Processing (RSIP).

[8]  Hannes Taubenböck,et al.  Slum mapping in polarimetric SAR data using spatial features , 2017 .

[9]  Fabrice Papa,et al.  ENVISAT radar altimeter measurements over continental surfaces and ice caps using the ICE-2 retracking algorithm , 2005 .

[10]  M. Aizerman,et al.  Theoretical Foundations of the Potential Function Method in Pattern Recognition Learning , 1964 .

[11]  Marta Zygmuntowska,et al.  Waveform classification of airborne synthetic aperture radar altimeter over Arctic sea ice , 2013 .

[12]  Seymour W. Laxon,et al.  Sea ice altimeter processing scheme at the EODC , 1994 .

[13]  Eero Rinne,et al.  Utilisation of CryoSat-2 SAR altimeter in operational ice charting , 2016 .

[14]  Mark R. Drinkwater,et al.  K u band airborne radar altimeter observations of marginal sea ice during the 1984 Marginal Ice Zone Experiment , 1991 .

[15]  Roger G. Barry,et al.  Observed sea ice extent in the Russian Arctic, 1933-2006 , 2008 .