Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

MFogHub: Bridging Multi-Regional and Multi-Satellite Data for Global Marine Fog Detection and Forecasting

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces MFogHub, a dataset combining 15 coastal fog-prone regions and six geostationary satellites to benchmark and improve marine fog detection and forecasting models.

desk verdict Valuable new multi-region, multi-satellite marine fog dataset, but the forecasting benchmark tables report internally impossible MSE/MAE pairs, so that half of the evaluation is not currently credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10281 v1 pith:EYTOXMXW submitted 2025-05-15 cs.CV

Mengqiu Xu , Kaixin Chen , Heng Guo , Yixiang Huang , Ming Wu , Zhenwei Shi , Chuang Zhang , Jun Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords marinefogdetectionforecastingmulti-regionaldatasetmulti-satellitegeostationarysatellitescube-streamstructuredomaingeneralizationremotesensingbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Marine fog studies have been held back by small datasets drawn from one coastline and one satellite, making it hard to tell whether a deep learning model has truly learned fog or just memorized a local scene. This paper introduces MFogHub, a dataset that combines annotated marine fog observations from 15 coastal fog-prone regions and six geostationary satellites into over 68,000 samples, organized into 21 'cube-streams' (timestamp–spectral band–latitude–longitude). The paper argues that this breadth is the point: by benchmarking sixteen baseline models, MFogHub shows that a model's fog-detection and forecasting skill fluctuates with the region and the satellite, and that training on multiple regions improves generalization. If the dataset is sound, it gives the community a shared testbed for building and evaluating fog models that work globally rather than locally.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cube-stream, a four-dimensional data structure $R^{T\times C\times H\times W}$ (timestamp, spectral band, latitude, longitude) that packages each region-satellite pair into a spatiotemporally aligned stream. The cube-stream does two jobs: it makes the 21 streams sliceable along any axis, so users can assemble custom sub-datasets by region, satellite, time, or spectral band; and it links detection (a single timestamp) and forecasting (a sequence of timestamps) from the same underlying data. The dataset's selection pipeline is the second piece of machinery: millions of shipboard weather observations are gridded and tallied to locate the 15 fog-prone coastal regions, and multi-spectral Level-1 data from the six satellites are projected and resampled to a common 1-km, 1024×1024 grid.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of the 11,600 pixel-level masks and have them re-annotated by an independent team of marine-fog meteorologists; if agreement is low, the benchmark rankings and generalization conclusions are unreliable. A complementary check is to compare fog/no-fog labels against lidar ceilometer or visibility station records at the same times and locations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that MFogHub is the first dataset that deliberately spans both multiple marine-fog regions and multiple geostationary satellites, and that this joint coverage lets researchers measure, rather than assume, how well fog models generalize. The paper substantiates this with 68,000 samples from 15 regions and six satellites, 21 cube-streams, 693 fog events, and 11,600 pixel-level masks annotated by meteorological experts. Benchmarking eight detection and eight forecasting baselines, it finds that model rankings shift across regions (e.g., DlinkViT and ABCNet are strong in the California Current and Gulf of Alaska but weaker in Baja California) and across satellites (e.g., SimVP-v2 jumps to first place on Fengyun-4A data while PredRNN dominates on Himawari-8/9), and that models trained on combined regions consistently beat single-region training. The paper interprets these patterns as evidence that single-region, single-satellite benchmarks can misrepresent a method's true capability.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest link is the 11,600 pixel-level annotation masks: the paper says they were made by meteorological experts, but reports no annotation protocol, inter-annotator agreement, or independent validation, so every detection and generalization result inherits the accuracy of those labels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-region fog models cannot be trusted to generalize; MFogHub provides the first shared testbed for measuring that gap.
  • Pooling data across regions raises cross-region performance for most architectures, making multi-region training the expected default for future fog models.
  • Forecasting models generalize across regions more consistently than detection models, but satellite choice still changes model rankings.
  • Natural-color band combinations (0.64, 0.86, 3.9 µm) outperform true-color three-band inputs, giving a concrete band-selection rule for constrained deployments.
  • A positive-to-negative sample ratio of 2:1 is recommended for fog detection training sets, as it balances missed detections and false alarms.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The cube-stream format can be reused for other spatiotemporal geophysical phenomena (aerosols, low clouds, sea ice) with minimal adaptation, since the slicing and multi-sensor alignment logic is generic.
  • By pairing overlapping satellites over the Yellow and Bohai Seas, MFogHub accidentally creates a ready-made domain-adaptation benchmark for remote sensing.
  • The 2:1 positive-to-negative ratio recommendation likely transfers to other segmentation tasks with rare foreground classes, but this is an untested extrapolation.
  • The regional splits could be used to test whether identical spectral signatures correspond to the same fog labels across regions, linking the dataset to physical fog-formation studies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents MFogHub, a large-scale marine fog dataset that integrates multi-regional and multi-satellite observations. The dataset includes over 68,000 samples from 15 coastal fog-prone regions observed by six geostationary satellites (FY4A, FY4B, GOES-16, GOES-17, H8/9, MeteoSat), organized into 21 cube-streams with dimensions of timestamp-spectral band-latitude-longitude. More than 11,600 samples are pixel-level annotated by meteorological experts. The paper describes the data collection and organization in detail, provides exploratory analysis of regional, satellite, and spectral-band variations, and reports benchmark experiments for eight detection models and eight forecasting models. The central claims are that MFogHub is the first global multi-regional, multi-satellite marine fog benchmark, and that it enables rigorous evaluation of model generalization across regions and satellites.

Significance. If the dataset is as described and the benchmarks are valid, MFogHub would be a substantial community resource: it is the first to combine 15 regions, six satellites, and both detection and forecasting tasks in a single open dataset. The cube-stream organization, built on the Mesogeos concept, is a sensible way to handle spatiotemporally aligned multi-spectral data, and the paper gives credit to that prior work. The data collection pipeline using ICOADS records and a 12.8-degree sliding window is clearly described, and the paper performs useful exploratory analysis on regional discrepancy and satellite variation. The detection benchmark tables report plausible metric values and the authors make an explicit recommendation on the positive-to-negative sample ratio based on experiments, which is falsifiable. However, the forecasting benchmark tables contain internally inconsistent MSE/MAE/PSNR values, and all experiments are reported as single-run point estimates. These issues undermine the forecasting half of the paper's central claim, so the manuscript requires major revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, Tables 3 and 5] The reported forecasting metrics are mutually inconsistent. For any error vector e, the root-mean-square error satisfies sqrt(MSE) = ||e||_2 / sqrt(N) >= ||e||_1 / N = MAE by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Yet Table 3 lists for ConvLSTM on the N.S. sub-dataset MSE=3315.46 and MAE=17461.5, so sqrt(MSE) ≈ 57.6 < 17461.5. The same reversed ordering appears in every row of Tables 3 and 5, for example Table 5 H8/9 ConvLSTM: MSE=697.12, MAE=7540.91. The PSNR values also do not correspond to the reported MSE under a standard 0-255 or 0-1 pixel range. Unless the columns are mislabeled or the metrics are computed on different quantities (e.g., MSE on normalized pixels and MAE on raw counts), at least one of the metrics is not what the paper claims. No such explanation is given in Section 4.2. Because all forecasting conclusions and model rankings are derived from these tables, the forecasting benchmark results are not currently trustworthy and must be recomputed or clarified.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Tables 2-6] All experimental results are reported as single-run point estimates without standard deviations, confidence intervals, or the number of random seeds. With eight baseline models and multiple sub-datasets, differences between models (e.g., Table 4's DlinkViT vs. ViT on H8/9, or Table 3's TAU vs. MIM on M.W.) could be within run-to-run noise. The paper should state the number of seeds, report variance, and describe the train/validation/test splits and hyperparameter selection procedure. Without this, the generalization conclusions based on small metric differences are not robust.
  3. [Section 2.3 and detection experiments] The 11,600 pixel-level annotation masks are described as 'meticulously annotated by meteorological experts' with procedures deferred to the Supplementary Materials. No inter-annotator agreement, annotation protocol summary, or independent validation is provided in the main text. Since all detection benchmarks and the detection-based generalization analysis depend on these labels, the paper should at least summarize the annotation protocol, quality control procedure, and estimated label uncertainty in the main text. This is a load-bearing point for the detection half of the dataset.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 5] The reference for SimVP-v2 is given as [6] in the table, but [6] is PhyDNet; the correct reference appears to be [29]. Please fix the citation.
  2. [Table 1] The region list contains a typo: 'South Sae' should be 'South Sea'. Also, 'costal' in Section 2.1 should be 'coastal'.
  3. [Section 2.2] The phrase 'we prioritiz coverage' should be 'we prioritize coverage'. Also, the distinction between 'L1 data' and 'L1.5 data from MeteoSat' is unclear and would benefit from a brief explanation or reference.
  4. [Section 4.3] In the text, the model name 'Deeplabv3' is used while the table and reference list say 'Deeplabv3p'; please standardize the name. Also 'V AN' appears with a space in Table 3; it should be 'VAN'.
  5. [Figure 9 and Section 4.6] The recommendation of a 2:1 positive-to-negative sample ratio is based on two regions (B.C. and G.A.) only. This is an interesting empirical observation, but the phrasing 'for future dataset construction' is too broad without testing on additional regions or tasks.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: MFogHub is a dataset and empirical benchmark whose claims rest on external baselines, independent data collection, and held-out evaluations; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is primarily a dataset contribution with benchmark experiments; there is no derivation chain whose conclusions are equivalent to its inputs. The cube-stream organization explicitly builds on the external Mesogeos dataset [13], not on a self-citation. The 16 detection and forecasting baselines are standard external models (e.g., DeepLabv3+, UNet, ConvLSTM, PredRNN, SimVP, TAU) with fixed implementations, and the reported conclusions about regional/satellite generalization come from training and testing on disjoint sub-datasets defined by region and satellite. The recommended 2:1 positive-to-negative sample ratio is an empirical finding from controlled experiments in Sec. 4.6, not a pre-fitted parameter later 'predicted.' Self-citations appear (e.g., [12], [28], [39] in related work and baseline lists), but none is used as the justificatory basis for the paper's central claims: the marine fog regions are selected from ICOADS observations, the labels are attributed to meteorological experts, and the benchmark results are computed independently of any self-cited theorem. The abstract's 'first multi-regional and multi-satellite dataset' claim is a comparative statement against the prior benchmarks listed in Table 1; it is not a mathematical derivation from an input. One internal-consistency issue noted by the reviewer — MSE/MAE pairs in Tables 3 and 5 that violate the standard inequality sqrt(MSE) >= MAE — is a serious correctness concern about the forecasting evaluation, but it is not circularity: it indicates possible metric mislabeling or inconsistent normalization, not the reduction of a claimed prediction to a fitted input. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The dataset's value rests on two domain assumptions: ship-based ICOADS frequencies adequately identify fog-prone regions, and expert pixel labels are accurate and consistent. Several design choices (window size, grid resolution, resampling, temporal interval, sample ratio) are hand-set rather than derived. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Region-selection sliding window size = 12.8 degrees
    Hand-chosen spatial window in Sec. 2.1 used to define the 15 fog-prone regions; changing it changes which regions enter the dataset.
  • ICOADS frequency grid resolution = 0.25 degrees
    Hand-chosen grid cell size for tallying fog frequencies from 9.5 million ICOADS records in Sec. 2.1.
  • Spatial resampling resolution = 1 km
    All satellite bands are standardized to 1 km (Sec. 2.2), upsampling or downsampling native channels from 0.5 to 4 km.
  • Temporal sampling interval = 30 minutes
    Minimum time interval of the cube-streams (Sec. 2.3); determines forecasting horizon granularity.
  • Recommended positive-to-negative sample ratio = 2:1
    Empirical recommendation from Sec. 4.6 based on two GOES regions and three ratios; used for future dataset construction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ICOADS ship-based observations provide a representative map of global marine fog occurrence frequency.
    Sec. 2.1 selects the 15 coastal regions from ICOADS records; ship routes dominate the data, so the frequency map is weighted toward navigation corridors.
  • domain assumption Expert pixel labels derived from meteorological reports are accurate ground truth for marine fog.
    Sec. 2.3 reports 11,600 pixel-labeled samples from meteorological agencies but gives no annotation protocol, inter-annotator agreement, or independent validation.
  • domain assumption Resampling all satellite channels to 1 km preserves the fog-relevant signal.
    Sec. 2.2 standardizes all bands to 1 km from native resolutions of 0.5 to 4 km; information loss is not quantified.
  • domain assumption Predicting raw satellite image sequences is a valid proxy for marine fog forecasting.
    Sec. 4.1 defines forecasting as mapping past image sequences to future image sequences; forecasting is evaluated with image metrics, not against fog labels.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MFogHub: Bridging Multi-Regional and Multi-Satellite Data for Global Marine Fog Detection and Forecasting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EYTOXMXW

@misc{pith2026250510281,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MFogHub: Bridging Multi-Regional and Multi-Satellite Data for Global Marine Fog Detection and Forecasting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EYTOXMXW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10281}
}
read the original abstract

Deep learning approaches for marine fog detection and forecasting have outperformed traditional methods, demonstrating significant scientific and practical importance. However, the limited availability of open-source datasets remains a major challenge. Existing datasets, often focused on a single region or satellite, restrict the ability to evaluate model performance across diverse conditions and hinder the exploration of intrinsic marine fog characteristics. To address these limitations, we introduce \textbf{MFogHub}, the first multi-regional and multi-satellite dataset to integrate annotated marine fog observations from 15 coastal fog-prone regions and six geostationary satellites, comprising over 68,000 high-resolution samples. By encompassing diverse regions and satellite perspectives, MFogHub facilitates rigorous evaluation of both detection and forecasting methods under varying conditions. Extensive experiments with 16 baseline models demonstrate that MFogHub can reveal generalization fluctuations due to regional and satellite discrepancy, while also serving as a valuable resource for the development of targeted and scalable fog prediction techniques. Through MFogHub, we aim to advance both the practical monitoring and scientific understanding of marine fog dynamics on a global scale. The dataset and code are at \href{https://github.com/kaka0910/MFogHub}{https://github.com/kaka0910/MFogHub}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10281 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of MFogHub. Right: MFogHub collects data from 15 marine fog-prone regions worldwide, captured by 6 geostation￾ary satellites. Middle: Data for each region-satellite pair is organized in a cube-stream structure with dimensions of “timestamp-spectral band-latitude-longitude.” MFogHub includes 21 cube-streams in total, each with corresponding masks, supporting both detection and fore￾casting tasks. Left: MFogH… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of marine fog occurrence frequency based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of data proportion and flow across various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spatial distribution and intensity variations across B.C., [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of pixel histogram distributions and band [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sensitivity analysis of spectral band for one marine fog event captured by the FY-4A satellite on March 25, 2021. (A) Pixel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Multi-region evaluation of CSI, Recall and Precision metrics for eight baseline models in marine fog detection, on B.C., C.C., [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Performance evaluation heatmaps for forecasting using TAU [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Proportion of positive and negative samples across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Disentangling physi- cal dynamics from unknown factors for unsupervised video prediction

    Vincent Le Guen and Nicolas Thome. Disentangling physi- cal dynamics from unknown factors for unsupervised video prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 11474– 11484, 2020. 5, 6

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    Machine learning for fog-and-low-stratus nowcasting from meteosat seviri satellite images

    Driss Bari, Nabila Lasri, Rania Souri, and Redouane Lguen- sat. Machine learning for fog-and-low-stratus nowcasting from meteosat seviri satellite images. Atmosphere, 14(6): 953, 2023. 1, 2

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    Sea fog monitoring method based on deep learning satellite multi-channel image fusion (in chi- nese)

    Huang Bin, Wu Ming, Zhu Shuyue, Zhao Wei, Cui Zhan- bei, and LYU Cheng. Sea fog monitoring method based on deep learning satellite multi-channel image fusion (in chi- nese). Meteorological Science and Technology, 49(6):823– 829, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation

    Liang-Chieh Chen, Yukun Zhu, George Papandreou, Florian Schroff, and Hartwig Adam. Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 801–818, 2018. 5, 6

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Syl- vain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020. 5, 6, 8

    arXiv 2010

  6. [5]

    A climatology of arctic fog along the coast of east greenland

    Ga ¨elle F Gilson, Hester Jiskoot, Soukeyna Gueye, and John H van Boxel. A climatology of arctic fog along the coast of east greenland. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Me- teorological Society, 150(759):706–726, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    A scse-linknet deep learning model for daytime sea fog detection

    Xiaofei Guo, Jianhua Wan, Shanwei Liu, Mingming Xu, Hui Sheng, and Muhammad Yasir. A scse-linknet deep learning model for daytime sea fog detection. Remote Sensing, 13 (24):5163, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    UNetFormer: A Unified Vision Transformer Model and Pre-Training Framework for 3D Medical Image Segmentation

    Ali Hatamizadeh, Ziyue Xu, Dong Yang, Wenqi Li, Holger Roth, and Daguang Xu. Unetformer: A unified vision trans- former model and pre-training framework for 3d medical im- age segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00631, 2022. 5, 6, 8

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Algorithm for sea fog monitoring with the use of in- formation technologies

    Ki-Young Heo, Suhyun Park, Kyung-Ja Ha, and Jae-Seol Shim. Algorithm for sea fog monitoring with the use of in- formation technologies. Meteorological Applications, 21(2): 350–359, 2014. 2

    2014

  2. [10]

    Learning to decompose and dis- entangle representations for video prediction

    Jun-Ting Hsieh, Bingbin Liu, De-An Huang, Li F Fei-Fei, and Juan Carlos Niebles. Learning to decompose and dis- entangle representations for video prediction. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018. 5, 6

    2018

  3. [11]

    Monitoring sea fog over the yellow sea and bohai bay based on deep convolutional neural network

    Bin Huang, Shi-bo Gao, Run-ling Yu, Wei Zhao, and Guan- bo Zhou. Monitoring sea fog over the yellow sea and bohai bay based on deep convolutional neural network. Journal of Tropical Meteorology, 30(3):223–229, 2024. 1

    2024

  4. [12]

    Weakly supervised sea fog detection in remote sensing images via prototype learn- ing

    Yixiang Huang, Ming Wu, Xin Jiang, Jiaao Li, Mengqiu Xu, Chuang Zhang, and Jun Guo. Weakly supervised sea fog detection in remote sensing images via prototype learn- ing. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,

  5. [13]

    Mesogeos: A multi-purpose dataset for data-driven wildfire modeling in the mediterranean

    Spyridon Kondylatos, Ioannis Prapas, Gustau Camps-Valls, and Ioannis Papoutsis. Mesogeos: A multi-purpose dataset for data-driven wildfire modeling in the mediterranean. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 3

    2024

  6. [14]

    Marine fog: challenges and advancements in observations, modeling, and forecast- ing

    Darko Kora ˇcin and Clive E Dorman. Marine fog: challenges and advancements in observations, modeling, and forecast- ing. Springer, 2017. 1, 3

    2017

  7. [15]

    Marine fog: A review

    Darko Kora ˇcin, Clive E Dorman, John M Lewis, James G Hudson, Eric M Wilcox, and Alicia Torregrosa. Marine fog: A review. Atmospheric research, 143:142–175, 2014. 1, 3

    2014

  8. [16]

    Uniformer: Unifying convolution and self-attention for visual recogni- tion

    Kunchang Li, Yali Wang, Junhao Zhang, Peng Gao, Guan- glu Song, Yu Liu, Hongsheng Li, and Yu Qiao. Uniformer: Unifying convolution and self-attention for visual recogni- tion. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2023. 5, 6

    2023

  9. [17]

    Abcnet: Attentive bilateral con- textual network for efficient semantic segmentation of fine- resolution remotely sensed imagery

    Rui Li, Shunyi Zheng, Ce Zhang, Chenxi Duan, Libo Wang, and Peter M Atkinson. Abcnet: Attentive bilateral con- textual network for efficient semantic segmentation of fine- resolution remotely sensed imagery. ISPRS Journal of Pho- togrammetry and Remote Sensing, 181:84–98, 2021. 5, 6

    2021

  10. [18]

    Daytime sea fog monitoring using multimodal self-supervised learning with band attention mechanism

    Tao Li, Wei Jin, Randi Fu, and Caifen He. Daytime sea fog monitoring using multimodal self-supervised learning with band attention mechanism. Neural Computing and Applica- tions, 34(23):21205–21222, 2022. 2

    2022

  11. [19]

    Daytime sea fog identification based on multi-satellite infor- mation and the eca-transunet model

    He Lu, Yi Ma, Shichao Zhang, Xiang Yu, and Jiahua Zhang. Daytime sea fog identification based on multi-satellite infor- mation and the eca-transunet model. Remote Sensing , 15 (16):3949, 2023. 2

    2023

  12. [20]

    A probability-based daytime algorithm for sea fog detection using goes-16 imagery

    Sahel Mahdavi, Meisam Amani, Terry Bullock, and Steven Beale. A probability-based daytime algorithm for sea fog detection using goes-16 imagery. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , 14:1363–1373, 2020. 2

    2020

  13. [21]

    Enhanced oceanic fog nowcasting through satellite- based recurrent neural networks

    Sahel Mahdavi, Meisam Amani, Terry Bullock, and Steven Beale. Enhanced oceanic fog nowcasting through satellite- based recurrent neural networks. Big Earth Data, pages 1– 20, 2024. 2

    2024

  14. [22]

    Sea fog detection based on unsuper- vised domain adaptation

    XU Mengqiu, WU Ming, GUO Jun, Chuang Zhang, W ANG Yubo, and MA Zhanyu. Sea fog detection based on unsuper- vised domain adaptation. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics , 35(4):415–425, 2022. 1

    2022

  15. [23]

    Fog detection based on me- teosat second generation-spinning enhanced visible and in- frared imager high resolution visible channel

    Saverio Teodosio Nilo, Filomena Romano, Jan Cermak, Domenico Cimini, Elisabetta Ricciardelli, Angela Cer- sosimo, Francesco Di Paola, Donatello Gallucci, Sabrina Gentile, Edoardo Geraldi, et al. Fog detection based on me- teosat second generation-spinning enhanced visible and ...

    2018

  16. [24]

    Spatio-temporal network for sea fog fore- casting

    Jinhyeok Park, Young Jae Lee, Yongwon Jo, Jaehoon Kim, Jin Hyun Han, Kuk Jin Kim, Young Taeg Kim, and Seoung Bum Kim. Spatio-temporal network for sea fog fore- casting. Sustainability, 14(23):16163, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  17. [25]

    Research Data Archive, Computational and Information Sys- tems Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Physi- cal Sciences Laboratory, Earth System Research Laboratory, OAR, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce, Coope...

    2016

  18. [26]

    U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Pa...

    2015

  19. [27]

    Convolutional lstm network: A machine learning approach for precipitation nowcasting

    Xingjian Shi, Zhourong Chen, Hao Wang, Dit-Yan Yeung, Wai-Kin Wong, and Wang-chun Woo. Convolutional lstm network: A machine learning approach for precipitation nowcasting. Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, 28, 2015. 5, 6

    2015

  20. [28]

    E2sam: A pipeline for efficiently extending sam’s capability on cross-modality data via knowledge in- heritance

    Sundingkai Su, Mengqiu Xu, Kaixin Chen, Ming Wu, and Chuang Zhang. E2sam: A pipeline for efficiently extending sam’s capability on cross-modality data via knowledge in- heritance. In 2023 British Machine Vision Conference, 2023. 2

    2023

  21. [29]

    Simvp: Towards simple yet powerful spatiotemporal predic- tive learning

    Cheng Tan, Zhangyang Gao, Siyuan Li, and Stan Z Li. Simvp: Towards simple yet powerful spatiotemporal predic- tive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12509, 2022. 5, 6, 7

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Temporal attention unit: To- wards efficient spatiotemporal predictive learning

    Cheng Tan, Zhangyang Gao, Lirong Wu, Yongjie Xu, Jun Xia, Siyuan Li, and Stan Z Li. Temporal attention unit: To- wards efficient spatiotemporal predictive learning. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18770–18782, 2023....

    2023

  23. [31]

    Open- stl: A comprehensive benchmark of spatio-temporal predic- tive learning

    Cheng Tan, Siyuan Li, Zhangyang Gao, Wenfei Guan, Ze- dong Wang, Zicheng Liu, Lirong Wu, and Stan Z Li. Open- stl: A comprehensive benchmark of spatio-temporal predic- tive learning. In Conference on Neural Information Process- ing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2023. 5

    2023

  24. [32]

    Sea fog detec- tion based on dynamic threshold algorithm at dawn and dusk time

    JH Wan, Li Jiang, YF Xiao, and Hui Sheng. Sea fog detec- tion based on dynamic threshold algorithm at dawn and dusk time. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Re- mote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 42:159–163,

  25. [33]

    Transformer meets convolution: A bilateral awareness network for semantic segmentation of very fine resolution urban scene images

    Libo Wang, Rui Li, Dongzhi Wang, Chenxi Duan, Teng Wang, and Xiaoliang Meng. Transformer meets convolution: A bilateral awareness network for semantic segmentation of very fine resolution urban scene images. Remote Sensing, 13 (16):3065, 2021. 5, 6

    2021

  26. [34]

    Predrnn: Recurrent neural networks for predictive learning using spatiotemporal lstms

    Yunbo Wang, Mingsheng Long, Jianmin Wang, Zhifeng Gao, and Philip S Yu. Predrnn: Recurrent neural networks for predictive learning using spatiotemporal lstms. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 5, 6, 7

    2017

  27. [35]

    Memory in memory: A predictive neural network for learning higher-order non- stationarity from spatiotemporal dynamics

    Yunbo Wang, Jianjin Zhang, Hongyu Zhu, Mingsheng Long, Jianmin Wang, and Philip S Yu. Memory in memory: A predictive neural network for learning higher-order non- stationarity from spatiotemporal dynamics. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and patter...

    2019

  28. [36]

    Automatic de- tection of daytime sea fog based on supervised classification techniques for fy-3d satellite

    Yu Wang, Zhongfeng Qiu, Dongzhi Zhao, Md Arfan Ali, Chenyue Hu, Yuanzhi Zhang, and Kuo Liao. Automatic de- tection of daytime sea fog based on supervised classification techniques for fy-3d satellite. Remote Sensing, 15(9):2283,

  29. [37]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Si- moncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 5

    2004

  30. [38]

    Deep spatial–spectral difference net- work with heterogeneous feature mutual learning for sea fog detection

    Nan Wu and Wei Jin. Deep spatial–spectral difference net- work with heterogeneous feature mutual learning for sea fog detection. International Journal of Applied Earth Observa- tion and Geoinformation, 133:104104, 2024. 2

    2024

  31. [39]

    Seamae: Masked pre-training with meteorological satellite imagery for sea fog detection

    Haotian Yan, Sundingkai Su, Ming Wu, Mengqiu Xu, Yi- hao Zuo, Chuang Zhang, and Bin Huang. Seamae: Masked pre-training with meteorological satellite imagery for sea fog detection. Remote Sensing, 15(16):4102, 2023. 5, 6, 8

    2023

  32. [40]

    Arctic fog detection using infrared spectral measurements

    Li Yi, King-Fai Li, Xianyao Chen, and Ka-Kit Tung. Arctic fog detection using infrared spectral measurements. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 36(8):1643–1656,

  33. [41]

    Physical processes in sea fog formation and characteristics of turbulent air-sea fluxes at socheongcho ocean research station in the yellow sea

    Junghee Yun and Kyung-Ja Ha. Physical processes in sea fog formation and characteristics of turbulent air-sea fluxes at socheongcho ocean research station in the yellow sea. Fron- tiers in Marine Science, 9:825973, 2022. 2

    2022

  34. [42]

    Dual-branch neu- ral network for sea fog detection in geostationary ocean color imager

    Yuan Zhou, Keran Chen, and Xiaofeng Li. Dual-branch neu- ral network for sea fog detection in geostationary ocean color imager. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sens- ing, 60:1–17, 2022. 2

    2022

  35. [43]

    Unet++: Redesigning skip connections to exploit multiscale features in image segmen- tation

    Zongwei Zhou, Md Mahfuzur Rahman Siddiquee, Nima Tajbakhsh, and Jianming Liang. Unet++: Redesigning skip connections to exploit multiscale features in image segmen- tation. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 39(6):1856– 1867, 2019. 5, 6, 8

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.