the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Machine Learning Detection of Dust Impact Signals Observed by The Solar Orbiter
Abstract. This article present results from automatic detection of dust impact signals observed by the Solar Orbiter – Radio and Plasma Waves instrument.
A sharp and characteristic electric field signal is observed by the Radio and Plasma Waves instrument when a dust particle impact the spacecraft at high velocity. In this way, ∼5–20 dust impacts are daily detected as the Solar Orbiter travels through the interstellar medium. The dust distribution in the inner solar system is largely uncharted and statistical studies of the detected dust impacts will enhance our understanding of the role of dust in the solar system.
It is however challenging to automatically detect and separate dust signals from the plural of other signal shapes for two main reasons. Firstly, since the spacecraft charging causes variable shapes of the impact signals and secondly because electromagnetic waves (such as solitary waves) may induce resembling electric field signals.
In this article, we propose a novel machine learning-based framework for detection of dust impacts. We consider two different supervised machine learning approaches: the support vector machine classifier and the convolutional neural network classifier. Furthermore, we compare the performance of the machine learning classifiers to the currently used on-board classification algorithm and analyze one and a half year of Radio and Plasma Waves instrument data.
Overall, we conclude that classification of dust impact signals is a suitable task for supervised machine learning techniques. In particular, the convolutional neural network achieves a 96 % ± 1 % overall classification accuracy and 94 % ± 2 % dust detection precision, a significant improvement to the currently used on-board classifier with 85 % overall classification accuracy and 75 % dust detection precision. In addition, both the support vector machine and the convolutional neural network detects more dust particles (on average) than the on-board classification algorithm, with 14 % ± 1 % and 16 % ± 7 % detection enhancement respectively.
The proposed convolutional neural network classifier (or similar tools) should therefore be considered for post-processing of the electric field signals observed by the Solar Orbiter.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(3491 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3491 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-725', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Sep 2022
Reviewer’s report on "Machine Learning Detection of Dust Impact Signals Observed by
The Solar Orbiter" by Andreas Kvammen1 et al., [Preprint egusphere-2022-725]:
Summary:
The authors presented two dust detection tools “that can be used to automatically process the large amount of data acquired by the Radio and Plasma Waves instrument on board the Solar Orbiter.” The two methods presented show stable performance with small errors, indicating that these methods are both suitable for the dataset. In general, I have found this paper well written, and suitable for publication in the ANGEO after some minor comments taken care of.
Minor comments:
P2, L24-29: It may be used again but adding a reference here would be better.
P2, L37, “interstellar dust population within…”?
P5, L140: the references are given, but I still suggest the author to add a bit more details about the algorithm. For example, the range of amplitude and bandwidth seem not lengthy to be added. The Figure 6i event is identified as dust because the frequency is not considered in the SVM? Also, will Figure 1c yield a negative ratio on item 2? These seem important to help the audience to understand the performance of SVM on some not-so-typical events.
P12, L255, “Figure 6 focuses mostly” on …?
P13, Figure 6 caption: “this can possibly be explained a weak…” ? Also, I assume that they are all 15 sec intervals, same as all such figures?
How many computation resources are used for the two methods? Is it trivial or expensive?
The conclusion of the paper is that both methods work. The error improvement of CNN vs SVM presented seems trivial. In addition to the slight accuracy improvement, is there anything else to help a user choose which method to use?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-725-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andreas Kvammen, 04 Nov 2022
Dear reviewer 1,
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and thank you for fruitful and appropriate comments. Attached is a comment-by-comment response. We have tried to addressed all comments in the revised manuscript.
In addition, about 6 months of new Solar Orbiter data has been uploaded to the Solar Orbiter RPW data archive: https://rpw.lesia.obspm.fr/roc/data/pub/solo/rpw/data/L2/tds_wf_e/
This additional data is now classified and included in Figure 11.best regards,
Kvammen and co-authors.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andreas Kvammen, 04 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-725', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Oct 2022
Review comment on the manuscript egusphere-2022-725 entitled ‘Machine Learning Detection of Dust Impact Signals Observed by The Solar Orbiter’ by Kvammen et al.
This paper presents a new technique to identify the electrical signal under the impact on spacecraft. The authors demonstrate that the recently recognized machine learning technics are useful in identifying the typically nonlinear shaped dust signals. The idea is new and worth the publication. Please consider the following questions/comments before publication.
Please address the capabilities of the methods in terms of the signal’s lifetime and amplitudes. In case the machine learning method is replaced instead of the current onboard dust detection algorithm, does this method works for the different lifetime of the dust signals, for instance?
Section 3.4.1 Feature Extraction: Please compare the two features selected in this study and the dust detection algorithm employed onboard TDS.
Figure 4: How is the ‘decision line’ defined?
Figures 4 and 5: Is the similar classification confirmed for the CNN results as well?
Figure 9: What are the highlighted area in a-i)?
Figure 11: Both SVM and CNN dust detection seem to have a local minimum around the perihelion, while TDS results are largely scattered and have a maximum around the perihelion. Is there any explanation for this?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-725-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Andreas Kvammen, 04 Nov 2022
Dear reviewer 1,
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and thank you for fruitful and appropriate comments. Attached is a comment-by-comment response. We have tried to address all comments in the revised manuscript. However, comment 2 is not fully addressed for the reasons explained in the attached response.
In addition, about 6 months of new Solar Orbiter data has been uploaded to the Solar Orbiter RPW data archive: https://rpw.lesia.obspm.fr/roc/data/pub/solo/rpw/data/L2/tds_wf_e/
This additional data is now classified and included in Figure 11.best regards,
Kvammen and co-authors.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Andreas Kvammen, 04 Nov 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-725', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Sep 2022
Reviewer’s report on "Machine Learning Detection of Dust Impact Signals Observed by
The Solar Orbiter" by Andreas Kvammen1 et al., [Preprint egusphere-2022-725]:
Summary:
The authors presented two dust detection tools “that can be used to automatically process the large amount of data acquired by the Radio and Plasma Waves instrument on board the Solar Orbiter.” The two methods presented show stable performance with small errors, indicating that these methods are both suitable for the dataset. In general, I have found this paper well written, and suitable for publication in the ANGEO after some minor comments taken care of.
Minor comments:
P2, L24-29: It may be used again but adding a reference here would be better.
P2, L37, “interstellar dust population within…”?
P5, L140: the references are given, but I still suggest the author to add a bit more details about the algorithm. For example, the range of amplitude and bandwidth seem not lengthy to be added. The Figure 6i event is identified as dust because the frequency is not considered in the SVM? Also, will Figure 1c yield a negative ratio on item 2? These seem important to help the audience to understand the performance of SVM on some not-so-typical events.
P12, L255, “Figure 6 focuses mostly” on …?
P13, Figure 6 caption: “this can possibly be explained a weak…” ? Also, I assume that they are all 15 sec intervals, same as all such figures?
How many computation resources are used for the two methods? Is it trivial or expensive?
The conclusion of the paper is that both methods work. The error improvement of CNN vs SVM presented seems trivial. In addition to the slight accuracy improvement, is there anything else to help a user choose which method to use?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-725-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andreas Kvammen, 04 Nov 2022
Dear reviewer 1,
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and thank you for fruitful and appropriate comments. Attached is a comment-by-comment response. We have tried to addressed all comments in the revised manuscript.
In addition, about 6 months of new Solar Orbiter data has been uploaded to the Solar Orbiter RPW data archive: https://rpw.lesia.obspm.fr/roc/data/pub/solo/rpw/data/L2/tds_wf_e/
This additional data is now classified and included in Figure 11.best regards,
Kvammen and co-authors.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andreas Kvammen, 04 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-725', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Oct 2022
Review comment on the manuscript egusphere-2022-725 entitled ‘Machine Learning Detection of Dust Impact Signals Observed by The Solar Orbiter’ by Kvammen et al.
This paper presents a new technique to identify the electrical signal under the impact on spacecraft. The authors demonstrate that the recently recognized machine learning technics are useful in identifying the typically nonlinear shaped dust signals. The idea is new and worth the publication. Please consider the following questions/comments before publication.
Please address the capabilities of the methods in terms of the signal’s lifetime and amplitudes. In case the machine learning method is replaced instead of the current onboard dust detection algorithm, does this method works for the different lifetime of the dust signals, for instance?
Section 3.4.1 Feature Extraction: Please compare the two features selected in this study and the dust detection algorithm employed onboard TDS.
Figure 4: How is the ‘decision line’ defined?
Figures 4 and 5: Is the similar classification confirmed for the CNN results as well?
Figure 9: What are the highlighted area in a-i)?
Figure 11: Both SVM and CNN dust detection seem to have a local minimum around the perihelion, while TDS results are largely scattered and have a maximum around the perihelion. Is there any explanation for this?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-725-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Andreas Kvammen, 04 Nov 2022
Dear reviewer 1,
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and thank you for fruitful and appropriate comments. Attached is a comment-by-comment response. We have tried to address all comments in the revised manuscript. However, comment 2 is not fully addressed for the reasons explained in the attached response.
In addition, about 6 months of new Solar Orbiter data has been uploaded to the Solar Orbiter RPW data archive: https://rpw.lesia.obspm.fr/roc/data/pub/solo/rpw/data/L2/tds_wf_e/
This additional data is now classified and included in Figure 11.best regards,
Kvammen and co-authors.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Andreas Kvammen, 04 Nov 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Data for Machine Learning Detection of Dust Impact Signals Observed by The Solar Orbiter Andreas Kvammen https://github.com/AndreasKvammen/ML_dust_detection
Model code and software
Code for Machine Learning Detection of Dust Impact Signals Observed by The Solar Orbiter Andreas Kvammen https://github.com/AndreasKvammen/ML_dust_detection
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
278 | 105 | 18 | 401 | 9 | 7 |
- HTML: 278
- PDF: 105
- XML: 18
- Total: 401
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Kristoffer Wickstrøm
Samuel Kociscak
Jakub Vaverka
Libor Nouzak
Arnaud Zaslavsky
Kristina Rackovic
Amalie Gjelsvik
David Pisa
Jan Soucek
Ingrid Mann
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3491 KB) - Metadata XML