the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A data-driven U-Net model with residual structures and attention mechanisms for short-term prediction of Arctic sea ice concentration
Abstract. Sea ice is vital in the global climate system, ecological balance and polar navigation. Arctic sea ice concentration (SIC) exhibits significant spatial heterogeneity and complex evolutionary patterns. In response to address these challenges, this study proposes a predictive model named sea ice concentration U-Net (SICUNet). SICUNet is a data-driven U-Net model that integrates attention mechanisms and residual structures for short-term prediction of SIC in the Arctic region. The model enhances the perception of multi-scale features through spatial-channel attention mechanisms. Meanwhile, it integrates residual structures to alleviate the vanishing gradient and improve training stability. SICUNet is trained and validated using SIC data from 1988 to 2020 and evaluated during the testing phase using data from 2021 to 2024. To accurately capture seasonal variations in SIC, each year is divided into a melting season and a freezing season. Model training and prediction are conducted separately for each season. The model input is a 448×304 tensor with 7 channels built from daily SIC data over seven consecutive days. It then predicts SIC for the subsequent 7 days. SICUNet is trained and validated based on this input-output structure, and further applied to recursive prediction of SIC. During the 2021–2024 testing period, SICUNet effectively predicts SIC for the upcoming 7 days and maintains stable and accurate performance across multiple recursive steps. It outperforms traditional U-Net, U2Net and numerical simulation methods, showing robust results under extreme SIC conditions.
- Preprint
(2896 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 02 Feb 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4935', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Jan 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jinyun Guo, 23 Jan 2026
reply
Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and compiled our detailed responses in the attached ZIP file, which includes a PDF of the response to reviewers and the revised figures. Please kindly check.
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Feb 2026
reply
I thank the authors for their responses to my questions and comments.
Most of the proposed revisions are appropriate and well-integrated.
However, I still believe further clarification is needed regarding the comparison with TOPAZ5.The authors mention that they use nearest-neighbour interpolation to limit smoothing during resampling. However, this doesn’t really address my main concern. Since TOPAZ has a higher nominal resolution than the satellite product, it can resolve smaller-scale features. When the model is downsampled using nearest-neighbour interpolation, this small-scale variability is aliased onto the coarser grid, potentially altering the representation of larger scales. As a result, the comparison with a coarser satellite product may partially reflect representativeness error due to unresolved subgrid-scale features rather than true model error.
For this reason, the authors should discuss the implications of the chosen interpolation method in relation to the effective spatial spectral resolution of the datasets being compared, and consider whether more robust approaches (e.g. conservative remapping, filtering followed by resampling) would be more appropriate.
It would also be useful to check whether the presented results are consistent with those reported by MET Norway for TOPAZ5 (https://cmems.met.no/ARC-MFC/Validation/index.html).Minor comment:
I appreciate the authors’ efforts to improve the readability of the figures. I suggest limiting the plots in Figures 5 and 7 to higher latitudes and possibly presenting them as horizontal, full-page figures. In any case, please ensure that all figure labels remain readable in an A4 printed version.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4935-RC2
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Feb 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jinyun Guo, 23 Jan 2026
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 165 | 77 | 17 | 259 | 15 | 15 |
- HTML: 165
- PDF: 77
- XML: 17
- Total: 259
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
In this study, the authors propose a data-driven model for short-term sea ice concentration (SIC) prediction based on a U-Net neural network architecture, termed SICUnet. The model extends a baseline U-Net by incorporating spatial-channel attention mechanisms. It is trained exclusively on satellite observations and uses daily SIC maps from seven consecutive days to predict SIC over the subsequent seven days. Longer forecast horizons are obtained through recursive application of the model, and results are presented up to a 35-day lead time (five recursive cycles). Performance evaluation over four test years indicates improved skill relative to other neural network architectures and to a reference numerical model.
The manuscript is generally clear and focuses primarily on the performance gains achieved through the proposed architectural modifications. However, the comparison with alternative approaches is somewhat limited, and the manuscript would benefit from a more critical discussion of the results, particularly with respect to non-conventional methodological choices (e.g., network architecture and loss function).
Below I outline several points that should be considered in revising the manuscript.
Minor comments:
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-1791-2024
https://doi.org/10.1029/2024MS004395
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.14984