Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Machine learning-based classification for Single Photon Space Debris Light Curves

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper demonstrates that automated feature extraction lets machine-learning classifiers sort single-photon space debris light curves with accuracies up to 90.7%, on tasks ranging from individual objects to broad types.

desk verdict First ML classification of single-photon space-debris light curves — plausible and worth engaging, but the cross-validation protocol under-specifies feature selection, so treat the ~90% accuracies as provisional until the pipeline is shown to be leak-free. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18231 v1 pith:IUUGUUNW submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.IM cs.LG

Nadine M. Trummer , Amit Reza , Michael A. Steindorfer , Christiane Helling This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMcs.LG
keywords spacedebrisclassificationlightcurvessingle-photonavalanchediodemachinelearningautomatedfeatureextractiongradientboostingconvolutionalneuralnetwork
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

Characterizing unknown debris in orbit usually requires resolvable images or expensive inversion; this paper shows that the much simpler time series of brightness — light curves measured one photon at a time — carry enough information for machine learning to tell tumbling objects apart. Using a single-photon avalanche diode at a satellite laser ranging station, the authors selected a clean subset of 852 light curves, cut them into 100-second segments, and trained four classifiers on three labeling schemes: individual objects, object families, and broad types. The paper's central finding is that automated feature extraction, not the raw time series, is what makes classification accurate: random forest and gradient-boosted trees reach 86–91% cross-validated accuracy, with the single best result 90.7% on the family task. The authors present this as evidence that single-photon light curves are a viable observational route to debris characterization and that classical tree ensembles can beat deep networks when labeled data are scarce. They also state two major limitations at the end: the experiments use 10 Hz-decimated data and only visually clean segments, not full-resolution or noisy observations.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by an automated feature-extraction pipeline: from each 100-second light-curve segment decimated to 10 Hz, the pipeline computes a large set of statistical and spectral descriptors, keeps 342 of them by significance testing, and compresses them with principal-component analysis to 42 decorrelated components. These feature vectors — not the photon-count series — are what the random forest, gradient-boosted tree, and convolutional network classifiers see, while a 1-nearest-neighbour classifier with dynamic time warping provides the distance-based baseline. The pipeline is load-bearing because the accuracy jump appears only after this transformation: raw light curves and simply decimated light curves give far lower scores.

What would settle it

Rerun the same 10-fold procedure with the feature-selection and compression steps recomputed inside each training fold, and compare the resulting accuracies to the reported 86–91%; a material drop would show the headline numbers were inflated by information leakage from the held-out folds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that Single Photon Light Curves — brightness measurements obtained by counting individual reflected solar photons with a single-photon avalanche diode during satellite laser ranging — are sufficient input for high-accuracy machine-learning classification of space debris. The authors demonstrate this on three tasks from their catalogue: distinguishing eight named objects, five object families such as the GLONASS constellation or geodetic spheres, and three broad types (rocket bodies, spherical satellites, and active satellites). The reported 10-fold cross-validated accuracies reach 88% on objects, 90% on families, and 86% on types, and the best single configuration reaches 90.7%. The central methodological conclusion is that automated feature extraction is critical: replacing raw decimated light curves with 342 statistically derived features, compressed with principal-component analysis to 42 components, lifts the tree classifiers by roughly 21 and 27 percentage points and lets them beat the standard 1-nearest-neighbour dynamic-time-warping baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the cross-validation scores are unbiased — specifically, that feature selection and the principal-component projection are learned only from training folds and never see the held-out data; the paper does not state that these steps were refit inside the loop.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-photon light curves recorded as a by-product of satellite laser ranging can be converted into a training set for debris classification without CCD imaging or separate brightness extraction.
  • Tree classifiers fed automated features outperform the standard dynamic-time-warping nearest-neighbour baseline and match or beat convolutional networks at this data size, so data-hungry deep models are not required for useful classification.
  • Classifier accuracy versus training-set size flattens near 80% of the available data, implying the curated subset is near the practical limit for these models and labels.
  • A majority-vote ensemble of the two tree classifiers on the Families task reaches 94.2%, making ensembling a direct next step beyond single classifiers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the feature-selection and compression steps were fit on the whole dataset before cross-validation, the reported accuracies could be optimistic; a rerun with these steps nested inside each training fold would settle how much of the gain is real (the paper does not describe such a nested procedure).
  • Because the training subset excludes most noisy or broken light curves, real-world performance on an operational catalogue is likely lower; testing on the much larger remainder of the catalogue that failed the visual quality cut would quantify the gap.
  • With strongly imbalanced classes and many objects contributing few light curves, the classifiers may be learning shape families rather than object identity; a leave-one-object-out evaluation would show whether an unseen debris object can be recognized.
  • If other laser ranging stations adopt single-photon light-curve collection, the method could scale cheaply through data sharing, but differences in telescope, detector, and site background would have to be treated as a domain shift.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 applies machine-learning classifiers to single-photon space-debris light curves from the IWF SPARC catalogue. Three labeling schemes are considered: Uniques (eight individual objects), Families (five groups of related objects), and Types (three broad classes: active satellites, rocket bodies, spherical satellites). The authors compare k-NN with Euclidean and DTW distances, Random Forest, XGBoost, and a one-dimensional CNN, with and without an automated TSFresh feature-extraction step followed by PCA. Using 10-fold cross-validation, they report accuracies up to 90.7% (Features+RDF on Families) and conclude that automated feature extraction is critical for high performance on this limited, imbalanced dataset.

Significance. If the reported accuracies are unbiased, the paper makes a useful empirical contribution: it demonstrates that single-photon light curves, collected with a SPAD detector rather than CCD imaging, can support automated classification, and it provides a systematic comparison of classical and deep classifiers on a real catalogue. The use of StratifiedGroupKFold to keep segments from the same light curve in the same fold is a good practice, and the inclusion of per-class metrics and confusion matrices aids interpretability. However, the central numerical claims depend on the cross-validation protocol being leak-free, and the manuscript does not currently establish that the feature selection, PCA, and hyperparameter tuning are nested inside the CV loop. This is a load-bearing issue, not a cosmetic one. The paper also acknowledges, in Section VI, that only ~13% of the catalogue (a visually selected 'well-behaved' subset) is used, which limits the scope of the abstract's general claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Feature Selection and Table IV] The reported accuracies in Table IV (e.g., Features+RDF 90.70% on Families) may be optimistically biased because the TSFresh feature selection and PCA projection are described as being applied to the full dataset before cross-validation. The text states 'Applying the TSFresh feature extraction pipeline to our decimated LC data results in 342 important features' and 'we applied Principal Components Analysis (PCA) ... We found the first 42 components to be relevant', but it does not state that these transformations were refit inside each training fold. If the p-value-based feature selection and the PCA projection are computed using all 1141 segments, the test folds have already influenced which features and components are used. Please clarify the exact protocol; if these steps are not nested within the CV loop, the experiments should be rerun with feature selection and PCA performed only on the training folds, and the hyperparameter grid search should likewise be nested.
  2. [Section V, Figure 6 and Figure 8(a)] The choice of the 10 Hz decimation rate and the 42 PCA components is made from accuracy curves that appear to be computed on the full dataset, not within the cross-validation loop. This constitutes an additional selection leak: the final accuracy numbers in Table IV are selected after tuning these preprocessing choices on the same data. The authors should either (i) demonstrate, by nested cross-validation, that the reported accuracies are stable under variations in these choices, or (ii) reframe the reported numbers as a model-selection result and re-estimate the generalization accuracy using a fully nested procedure.
  3. [Section V B, StratifiedGroupKFold and Section III C] The StratifiedGroupKFold split groups by individual 100-second segments coming from the same light curve, but not by physical object (NORAD ID). For the Uniques and Families tasks, multiple light curves of the same object can therefore appear in both the training and test folds, allowing the classifier to memorize object-specific signatures rather than learning to classify previously unseen objects. The reported accuracies do not, as they stand, demonstrate generalization to new objects of a given family or type. A stricter evaluation would group by object (or at least by orbital pass) so that the test set contains objects not seen during training.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] There are several typos, including 'Convoluational Neural Network' in Section I, 'debirs' in Section III A, 'Unqiues' in Section VI, 'Feautures+XGB' in the Figure 6 caption, and 'conisdering' in Section III B; these should be corrected.
  2. [Table V] The entry 'F amiliesFeatures+RDF' contains a stray space and should read 'Families Features+RDF'.
  3. [Section VI, Evaluating Train-Test Ratio Effectiveness] The sentence 'using 64% of the total data for training, 36% (with 16% for validation) for testing' is confusing because the percentages do not sum consistently with an 80:20 train-test split; please clarify the actual split used for Figure 11.
  4. [Section V, Feature Selection] The criterion for 'relevant' principal components is not quantified; Figure 8(a) shows an accuracy curve, but no threshold or error bars are given, so the choice of 42 components is not independently reproducible.
  5. [Section IV A] The description of TSFresh's feature selection is vague; please specify the hypothesis test used, the significance threshold, and how many features were extracted before the selection step.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Reported accuracies are selected, not predicted: TSFresh feature selection, PCA, and the 10 Hz decimation rate are chosen on the full data set before the cross-validation that produces the headline numbers.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V, 'Feature Selection' paragraph and Table IV]
    "Applying the TSFresh feature extraction pipeline to our decimated LC data results in 342 important features. ... we applied Principal Components Analysis (PCA) ... We found the first 42 components to be relevant for our task. Figure 8 (a) shows that with top-42 principal components, we obtained an accuracy score ∼ 90%."

    The TSFresh p-value feature selection and the PCA projection are described as applied to the full data set before the 10-fold cross-validation that produces the headline accuracies. Because TSFresh selects features using hypothesis tests against the class labels and PCA is fit on all 1141 segments, the test folds have already influenced which features and components are used. The Table IV scores (e.g., Features+RDF 90.7% on Families) are therefore re-evaluations of a pipeline tuned on the same data, not independent predictions on held-out data; the 'prediction' is statistically forced by the prior fit.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section V, first paragraph and Figure 6]
    "We investigated the influence of sampling frequency on model performance by decimating LC data to various sampling frequencies (e.g., 0.1 Hz, 1 Hz or 10 Hz) and training a XGB classifier with extracted features. The accuracy (after 10-fold cross-validation) of the XGB classifier with extracted features from the downsampled versions is depicted in Figure 6. ... We have chosen 10 Hz to sample the LC data."

    The 10 Hz decimation rate is chosen from an accuracy curve computed on the full data set, and every reported result in Table IV uses this rate. Selecting the downsampling rate to maximize cross-validated accuracy on the same data set is a second fitted input that is folded into the reported numbers, making the central accuracy claims optimistically biased rather than independent predictions.

full rationale

This is an empirical machine-learning study rather than a mathematical derivation, so there is no equation-level self-definition or imported uniqueness theorem. The circularity that is present is of the 'fitted input called prediction' kind: the preprocessing pipeline is selected on the full data set before the cross-validation that generates the paper's central accuracy claims. The paper states that TSFresh results in 342 important features, that PCA identifies 42 relevant components, and that 10 Hz was chosen after inspecting an accuracy curve, but it does not state that any of these steps were refit inside each training fold. StratifiedGroupKFold and GridSearchCV are mentioned for the classifier split and hyperparameter tuning, but not for feature selection or PCA. As written, the test folds have therefore already contributed to the choice of features, components, and decimation rate, so the Table IV percentages are selected statistics rather than unbiased held-out predictions. This is a partial circularity of the reported performance numbers, not a wholesale collapse of the qualitative claim that automated features can help classify single-photon light curves; a properly nested cross-validation protocol could restore the independence of the prediction. No load-bearing self-citation circularity was found: the authors' prior instrumental papers are cited for hardware and measurement context, not as the source of the classification claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central result rests on dataset curation choices (visual selection, 100 s windows, 10 Hz decimation, 42 PCA components), hyperparameters tuned on the same data, and the unstated assumption that feature selection and PCA are cross-validation-safe. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Window length for slicing = 100 s
    Selected by hand as a trade-off between augmentation and capturing at least one rotation; not fitted to a separate objective, but a modelling choice.
  • Decimation sampling frequency = 10 Hz
    Chosen after observing that cross-validated accuracy stabilizes above 1 Hz (Figure 6); selection uses the same data.
  • Number of PCA components = 42
    Chosen from the accuracy-vs-components curve (Figure 8a); selection is based on the same dataset used for evaluation.
  • Random Forest hyperparameters = criterion=entropy, n_estimators=200, bootstrap=False, max_depth=10, max_features=log2
    Tuned via GridSearchCV; part of the model configuration.
  • XGBoost hyperparameters = n_estimators=200, eta=0.25, gamma=0.3, subsample=0.8, objective=multi:softprob
    Tuned via GridSearchCV; part of the model configuration.
  • k in k-NN = 1
    Chosen as literature recommendation for DTW; not fit to data, but a model choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The selected well-behaved subset (852 LCs, 150 objects, visually inspected) is representative of single-photon debris light curves
    Section III states the subset was chosen through visual inspection and only includes LCs with clear signal; generalizing beyond this subset requires this assumption.
  • domain assumption A 100-second window captures enough rotational information for classification
    Section III B justifies 100 s as capturing at least one full rotation for 'most objects', but the paper notes many objects rotate slower than 100 s.
  • ad hoc to paper TSFresh feature selection and PCA do not leak test-fold information when applied before cross-validation
    Section V A applies TSFresh and PCA to the data and selects 42 components based on accuracy, without describing fitting inside folds; the validity of the reported accuracy depends on this unstated methodological assumption.
  • domain assumption Light curves contain class-discriminative information about object shape, attitude, and rotational state
    Supported by cited literature [6-8], and is the physical motivation for the classification tasks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Machine learning-based classification for Single Photon Space Debris Light Curves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IUUGUUNW

@misc{pith2026241118231,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Machine learning-based classification for Single Photon Space Debris Light Curves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IUUGUUNW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18231}
}
read the original abstract

The growing number of man-made debris in Earth's orbit poses a threat to active satellite missions due to the risk of collision. Characterizing unknown debris is, therefore, of high interest. Light Curves (LCs) are temporal variations of object brightness and have been shown to contain information such as shape, attitude, and rotational state. Since 2015, the Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) group of Space Research Institute (IWF) Graz has been building a space debris LC catalogue. The LCs are captured on a Single Photon basis, which sets them apart from CCD-based measurements. In recent years, Machine Learning (ML) models have emerged as a viable technique for analyzing LCs. This work aims to classify Single Photon Space Debris using the ML framework. We have explored LC classification using k-Nearest Neighbour (k-NN), Random Forest (RDF), XGBoost (XGB), and Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) classifiers in order to assess the difference in performance between traditional and deep models. Instead of performing classification on the direct LCs data, we extracted features from the data first using an automated pipeline. We apply our models on three tasks, which are classifying individual objects, objects grouped into families according to origin (e.g., GLONASS satellites), and grouping into general types (e.g., rocket bodies). We successfully classified Space Debris LCs captured on Single Photon basis, obtaining accuracies as high as 90.7%. Further, our experiments show that the classifiers provide better classification accuracy with automated extracted features than other methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18231 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The european space agency’s space environment report 2023 (), accessed: 29 August 2024

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Space debris by the numbers (), accessed: 29 August 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Schildknecht, Optical surveys for space debris, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 14, 41 (2007)

    T. Schildknecht, Optical surveys for space debris, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 14, 41 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    D. J. Kessler and B. G. Cour-Palais, Collision frequency of artificial satellites: The creation of a debris belt, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 83, 2637 (1978)

    work page 1978

  5. [5]

    Fan and C

    S. Fan and C. Frueh, A direct light curve inversion scheme in the presence of measurement noise, The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences 67, 740 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    ˇSilha, M

    J. ˇSilha, M. Zigo, T. Hrob´ ar, P. Jevˇ c´ ak, and M. Vereˇ sv´ arska, Light curves application to space debris characterization and classification, complexity 10, 3 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Kucharski, G

    D. Kucharski, G. Kirchner, M. K. Jah, J. C. Bennett, F. Koidl, M. A. Steindorfer, and P. Wang, Full attitude state reconstruction of tumbling space debris topex/poseidon via light-curve inversion with quanta photogrammetry, Acta Astronautica 187, 115 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    ˇSilha, J.-N

    J. ˇSilha, J.-N. Pittet, M. Hamara, and T. Schildknecht, Apparent rotation properties of space debris extracted from photometric measurements, Advances in space research 61, 844 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Allworth, L

    J. Allworth, L. Windrim, J. Bennett, and M. Bryson, A transfer learning approach to space debris classification using observational light curve data, Acta Astronautica 181, 301 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Burton and C

    A. Burton and C. Frueh, Two methods for light curve inversion for space object attitude determination, in Proceedings of the 8th European conference on space debris(2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Linares, R

    R. Linares, R. Furfaro, and V. Reddy, Space objects classification via light-curve measurements using deep convolutional neural networks, The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences 67, 1063 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Wu and J.-w

    Y.-c. Wu and J.-w. Feng, Development and application of artificial neural network, Wireless Personal Communications 102, 1645 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Albawi, T

    S. Albawi, T. A. Mohammed, and S. Al-Zawi, Understanding of a convolutional neural network, in 2017 international conference on engineering and technology (ICET)(Ieee, 2017) pp. 1–6

    2017

  6. [14]

    Wu, Introduction to convolutional neural networks, National Key Lab for Novel Software Technology

    J. Wu, Introduction to convolutional neural networks, National Key Lab for Novel Software Technology. Nanjing University. China 5, 495 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    J. Gu, Z. Wang, J. Kuen, L. Ma, A. Shahroudy, B. Shuai, T. Liu, X. Wang, G. Wang, J. Cai, et al., Recent advances in convolutional neural networks, Pattern recognition 77, 354 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Furfaro, R

    R. Furfaro, R. Linares, D. Gaylor, M. Jah, and R. Walls, Resident space object characterization and behavior understanding via machine learning and ontology-based bayesian networks, in Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference (2016) p. 35

    2016

  9. [17]

    Furfaro, R

    R. Furfaro, R. Linares, and V. Reddy, Shape identification of space objects via light curve inversion using deep learning models, in AMOS Technologies Conference, Maui Economic Development Board, Kihei, Maui, HI(2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    M. A. Hearst, S. T. Dumais, E. Osuna, J. Platt, and B. Scholkopf, Support vector machines, IEEE Intelligent Systems and their applications 13, 18 (1998)

    1998

  11. [19]

    J. R. Quinlan, Simplifying decision trees, International journal of man-machine studies 27, 221 (1987)

    1987

  12. [20]

    Le Guennec, S

    A. Le Guennec, S. Malinowski, and R. Tavenard, Data augmentation for time series classification using convolutional neural networks, in ECML/PKDD workshop on advanced analytics and learning on temporal data(2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Q. Wen, L. Sun, F. Yang, X. Song, J. Gao, X. Wang, and H. Xu, Time series data augmentation for deep learning: A survey, arXiv:2002.12478 https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.12478 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    B. K. Iwana and S. Uchida, An empirical survey of data augmentation for time series classification with neural networks, Plos one 16, e0254841 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Pearlman, D

    M. Pearlman, D. Arnold, M. Davis, F. Barlier, R. Biancale, V. Vasiliev, I. Ciufolini, A. Paolozzi, E. C. Pavlis, K. So´ snica, et al., Laser geodetic satellites: a high-accuracy scientific tool, Journal of Geodesy 93, 2181 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Kucharski, G

    D. Kucharski, G. Kirchner, J. Bennett, M. Lachut, K. So´ snica, N. Koshkin, L. Shakun, F. Koidl, M. Steindorfer, P. Wang, et al., Photon pressure force on space debris topex/poseidon measured by satellite laser ranging, Earth and Space Science 4, 661 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Kucharski, G

    D. Kucharski, G. Kirchner, F. Koidl, C. Fan, R. Carman, C. Moore, A. Dmytrotsa, M. Ploner, G. Bianco, M. Medvedskij, et al., Attitude and spin period of space debris envisat measured by satellite laser ranging, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience 21 and Remote Sensing 52, 7651 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Kirchner, M

    G. Kirchner, M. Steindorfer, P. Wang, F. Koidl, D. Kucharski, J. Silha, T. Schildknecht, H. Krag, and T. Flohrer, Determination of attitude and attitude motion of space debris, using laser ranging and single-photon light curve data, in Proceedings of the 7th European Conferenc...

    2017

  19. [27]

    Yu and H

    T. Yu and H. Zhu, Hyper-parameter optimization: A review of algorithms and applications, arXiv:2003.05689 10.48550/arXiv.2003.05689 (2020)

    2020 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    Allworth, L

    J. Allworth, L. Windrim, J. Wardman, D. Kucharski, J. Bennett, and M. Bryson, Development of a high fidelity simulator for generalised photometric based space object classification using machine learning, arXiv:2004.12270 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.12270 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cunningham and S

    P. Cunningham and S. J. Delany, K-nearest neighbour classifiers-a tutorial, ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 54, 1 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Pal, Random forest classifier for remote sensing classification, International journal of remote sensing 26, 217 (2005)

    M. Pal, Random forest classifier for remote sensing classification, International journal of remote sensing 26, 217 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    Chen and C

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin, Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system, in Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining(2016) pp. 785–794

    2016

  24. [32]

    Abanda, U

    A. Abanda, U. Mori, and J. A. Lozano, A review on distance based time series classification, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 33, 378 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    B. J. Erickson and F. Kitamura, Magician’s corner: 9. performance metrics for machine learning models (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Grandini, E

    M. Grandini, E. Bagli, and G. Visani, Metrics for multi-class classification: an overview, arXiv:2008.05756 10.48550/arXiv.2008.05756 (2020)

    2020 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    Wilkinson, U

    M. Wilkinson, U. Schreiber, I. Proch´ azka, C. Moore, J. Degnan, G. Kirchner, Z. Zhongping, P. Dunn, V. Shargorodskiy, M. Sadovnikov, et al., The next generation of satellite laser ranging systems, Journal of Geodesy 93, 2227 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    M. A. Steindorfer, G. Kirchner, F. Koidl, P. Wang, B. Jilete, and T. Flohrer, Daylight space debris laser ranging, Nature communications 11, 3735 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    S. M. Trimberger, Field-programmable gate array technology(Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Steindorfer, G

    M. Steindorfer, G. Kirchner, F. Koidl, and P. Wang, Light curve measurements with single photon counters at graz slr, in 2015 ILRS Technical Workshop(2015) pp. 1–7

    2015

  31. [39]

    Bostrom and A

    A. Bostrom and A. Bagnall, Binary shapelet transform for multiclass time series classification, in Big Data Analytics and Knowledge Discovery: 17th International Conference, DaWaK 2015, Valencia, Spain, September 1-4, 2015, Proceedings 17 (Springer, 2015) pp. 257–269

    2015

  32. [40]

    Christ, A

    M. Christ, A. W. Kempa-Liehr, and M. Feindt, Distributed and parallel time series feature extraction for industrial big data applications, arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.07717 https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.07717 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    X. Wang, A. Mueen, H. Ding, G. Trajcevski, P. Scheuermann, and E. Keogh, Experimental comparison of representation methods and distance measures for time series data, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 26, 275 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Lines and A

    J. Lines and A. Bagnall, Time series classification with ensembles of elastic distance measures, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 29, 565 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Sch¨ afer, Scalable time series classification, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 30, 1273 (2016)

    P. Sch¨ afer, Scalable time series classification, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 30, 1273 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Greenacre, P

    M. Greenacre, P. J. Groenen, T. Hastie, A. I. d’Enza, A. Markos, and E. Tuzhilina, Principal component analysis, Nature Reviews Methods Primers 2, 100 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, et al., Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python, the Journal of machine Learning research 12, 2825 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    T. Chen, T. He, M. Benesty, and V. Khotilovich, Package ‘xgboost’, R version 90, 40 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Abadi, A

    M. Abadi, A. Agarwal, P. Barham, E. Brevdo, Z. Chen, C. Citro, G. S. Corrado, A. Davis, J. Dean, M. Devin, et al., Tensorflow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    Families

    R. Qashoa and R. Lee, Classification of low earth orbit (leo) resident space objects’(rso) light curves using a support vector machine (svm) and long short-term memory (lstm), Sensors 23, 6539 (2023). 22 APPENDIX The results show that the accuracy of random forest and xgboost ...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.