GRIT: Graph Transformer For Internal Ice Layer Thickness Prediction

Maryam Rahnemoonfar; Zesheng Liu

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 22 references

GRIT: Graph Transformer For Internal Ice Layer Thickness Prediction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GRIT predicts thickness of 15 deeper Greenland ice layers from 5 shallow layers with mean RMSE 3.06 m, beating four graph-network baselines.

desk verdict GRIT is a sensible but incremental graph-transformer adaptation for ice-layer prediction; the evaluation as reported does not isolate the architecture, so the claimed advantage is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07388 v1 pith:46QJRKJQ submitted 2025-07-10 cs.LG

Zesheng Liu , Maryam Rahnemoonfar This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords graphtransformerinternalicelayerslayerthicknesspredictionradargramGreenlandsheetSAGEtemporalattentionremotesensing

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

This paper argues that a graph transformer called GRIT can learn how shallow ice layers encode the thickness of deeper layers, and that adding a temporal self-attention block to a graph neural network is what makes the prediction accurate. On 1,660 radargram images from the CReSIS Greenland 2012 survey, GRIT uses the thickness and geography of the top five layers (2007–2011) to predict the next fifteen layers (1992–2006). Across five random data splits it reports a mean root mean squared error of 3.0597 ± 0.0326 m, lower than four recurrent graph convolutional baselines and with less variability. If the claim holds, attention-based graph models are a viable alternative to recurrent ones for reading climate history from ice-penetrating radar.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the temporal multi-head attention block, adapted from the standard transformer encoder and applied along the temporal dimension of the GraphSAGE embeddings. Each input layer is a spatial graph of 256 nodes whose edge weights are inverse geographic distances computed with the haversine formula and whose node features are latitude, longitude, and layer thickness; five independent GraphSAGE encoders produce feature embeddings that are then attended over with eight heads using scaled dot-product attention. The attention mechanism is what lets the model weigh all shallow layers jointly and capture dependencies that recurrent graph networks would have to propagate step by step.

What would settle it

A fair comparison experiment would retrain every baseline and GRIT with the identical learning-rate schedule and initial learning rate on the same five data splits. If GRIT's mean RMSE is no longer below the Multi-branch baseline, the claim that the temporal attention block drives the improvement is falsified; an ablation that removes the attention block from GRIT while keeping everything else fixed would give the same answer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

GRIT's central claim is that long-range temporal dependencies across ice layers are better learned by a transformer's multi-head attention than by the recurrent aggregation used in prior graph networks. The network encodes each of the five input layers with an independent GraphSAGE block, concatenates the spatial embeddings, and runs them through an 8-head temporal attention encoder before a two-layer convolutional decoder produces the 15 target thickness maps. On the CReSIS Greenland 2012 dataset, GRIT achieves a mean RMSE of 3.0597 ± 0.0326 m across five shuffled train/validation/test splits, the lowest among AGCN-LSTM (3.4808 ± 0.0397), GCN-LSTM (3.1745 ± 0.1045), GraphSAGE-LSTM (3.3837 ± 0.1103), and Multi-branch (3.1087 ± 0.0555). The paper also reports lower standard deviation, which it reads as more stable predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The reported advantage assumes GRIT and the baselines are compared fairly; because GRIT is trained with an adaptive learning-rate schedule starting at 0.001 while every baseline uses a step decay starting at 0.01, the lower RMSE could come from better tuning rather than from the temporal attention block.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

GRIT predicts the thickness of 15 deeper internal ice layers from the top 5 layers with a mean RMSE of 3.0597 ± 0.0326 m on the CReSIS Greenland 2012 dataset.
The temporal attention block yields consistently lower prediction error and lower variance than recurrent graph convolutional baselines, indicating attention can replace recurrent temporal modeling in this task.
The architecture is designed to generalize to any number of input and output layers and to radargrams of different sizes, so the same network can be repurposed for other depth ranges or sensors.
Because GRIT uses an inductive GraphSAGE encoder, it can produce embeddings for nodes not seen during training, which matters for new flight lines over the ice sheet.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: the reported comparison does not rule out that GRIT's lower error comes from its adaptive learning-rate schedule (initial 0.001) versus the baselines' step decay (initial 0.01); a matched-schedule rerun would isolate the attention block's contribution.
Editorial extension: attention weights could be inspected to identify which shallow years carry the most information about a given deep layer, turning the model from a predictor into a diagnostic of snow accumulation history.
Editorial extension: because the graph representation is built only from coordinates and thickness, the same GRIT design could ingest other continuous fields measured along flight lines, such as radar echo strength or surface elevation, without changing the architecture.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Hi [Name],

Quick take on arXiv:2507.07388. This is a short IGARSS paper that replaces the LSTM in their earlier spatial-GNN ice-layer predictor with a multi-head attention block over the temporal axis. The architecture is straightforward: five GraphSAGE encoders produce embeddings per input layer, a standard transformer encoder operates across the layer dimension, and a conv decoder outputs the 15 deeper layers. Nothing in the design is new by itself, but the specific combination for this application is a real, if modest, increment over their prior GNN-LSTM work. The writing is clear, the problem is well motivated, and I appreciate that they report mean and standard deviation over five random splits rather than a single run.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader's stress-test points. Section V-B gives GRIT an adaptive learning-rate schedule (initial 0.001, halve after 16 epochs of validation stagnation) while all baselines get a step schedule (initial 0.01, halve every 75 epochs). That means Table I conflates architecture with optimization. The gap to the best baseline is 0.049 m; that baseline's standard deviation is 0.056 m, and the difference is smaller than the spread. No significance test is reported. On top of that, there is no ablation that removes the attention block or replaces it with something else, so even if the advantage were real, we could not attribute it to attention. The paper also does not ship code or data, though the dataset is public, so reproduction would be possible if the authors shared their preprocessing.

The baselines come almost entirely from the same research group, which narrows the comparison, but that is more a limitation than a flaw. The central issue remains the unmatched training protocol.

So my bottom line: the idea is plausible and the paper is worth a serious referee, but the central empirical claim is not supported by the evidence as presented. I would send it to review with a clear request: run all models under identical training schedules, add a paired test or at least report per-split results, and add an ablation that isolates attention. If those changes do not preserve the ranking, the conclusion should be scaled back.

For you: if you work on radar-based snow accumulation or graph transformers for scientific data, this is a quick read and a useful cautionary example about evaluation hygiene. I would not cite it for the performance claim unless the re-run confirms it. It deserves reviewer time at a conference but not a strong recommendation on current evidence.

Best.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces GRIT, a graph transformer for predicting the thickness of deep internal ice layers from shallow layers. The architecture uses five GraphSAGE encoders to produce spatial node embeddings for each of the m=5 input layers, a temporal multi-head attention block to model dependencies across layers, and two convolutional layers as a decoder to predict n=15 output layers. On the CReSIS Greenland 2012 dataset, the authors report a mean RMSE of 3.0597 ± 0.0326 m over five data-split permutations, which is lower than the reported RMSEs of four recurrent graph-convolutional baselines (best baseline: multi-branch GNN, 3.1087 ± 0.0555 m). The paper claims the attention mechanism is effective for capturing temporal changes, but the experimental protocol does not fully support this attribution because the training schedules are not matched and no significance test or ablation is provided.

Significance. If the claimed improvement is robust, GRIT represents a useful step for automated ice-layer thickness estimation from airborne radar, an important task for climate modeling. The paper has strengths: it uses real CReSIS data, describes data preprocessing clearly, and evaluates across five random train/validation/test splits, which is more careful than many short conference papers. However, the practical significance of the reported gain is uncertain: the mean RMSE difference to the best baseline (0.049 m) is smaller than the baseline's standard deviation (0.0555 m), and the unmatched optimization schedules prevent the conclusion that the architecture, rather than hyperparameter choice, drives the result. The central claim is plausible but not yet established at the level required for a definitive journal publication; the missing matched-schedule comparison and ablation are the key gaps.

major comments (3)

[Section V-B; Table I] The optimization protocol is not matched between GRIT and the baselines. GRIT is trained with an adaptive learning-rate scheduler (initial learning rate 0.001, halving after 16 epochs without validation improvement), while all baselines use a step scheduler (initial learning rate 0.01, halving every 75 epochs). Since learning-rate schedules strongly affect the final RMSE of recurrent GNNs, this setup confounds model architecture with training recipe. The reported advantage over the best baseline, 3.1087 - 3.0597 = 0.049 m, is smaller than the standard deviation of that baseline (0.0555 m) and no paired significance test is reported. I request a matched-schedule comparison (e.g., train all models with the same scheduler or include a grid of initial learning rates) and per-split RMSE values with a paired significance test (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank test).
[Section V-C; Figure 2; Conclusion] The paper attributes GRIT's lower error to the temporal attention block ('these results highlight the attention mechanism's effectiveness'), but no ablation study supports this attribution. To isolate the contribution of temporal attention, please add an ablation that replaces the temporal multi-head attention block with a recurrent layer (e.g., an LSTM) or removes it entirely, while keeping the GraphSAGE encoders, the decoder, and the training schedule fixed. Without such an ablation, the architecture's advantage could stem from any other component (e.g., the number of parameters or the inductive GraphSAGE encoders).
[Section V-A, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) does not correctly state the inverse-distance edge weight. The haversine distance is normally \(2R\arcsin(\sqrt{\mathrm{hav}(\phi_j-\phi_i)+\cos\phi_i\cos\phi_j\,\mathrm{hav}(\lambda_j-\lambda_i)})\), and the edge weight should be the reciprocal of that distance. As written, the formula omits the square root and the Earth's radius and sets the weight to the reciprocal of the arcsin term, which is dimensionally and numerically inconsistent. Please correct the formula or clarify the exact computation used for the graph edge weights.

minor comments (6)

[Section V heading] The heading 'EXPERIEMENTS' should be 'EXPERIMENTS'.
[Section III] 'CRsSIS' should be 'CReSIS'.
[Section I, Introduction] The acronym definition 'Graph t Ransfromer from For Ice layer Thickness' contains a typo; it should be 'Graph Transformer for Ice Layer Thickness'.
[References] References [2] and [18] are duplicate entries for the same Gogineni et al. paper; please merge or renumber.
[Section V-B] The paper does not report model parameter counts or training time, which makes it difficult to assess whether GRIT's improvement is due to increased model capacity; please add these details.
[Figure 1] The architecture diagram in Figure 1 is difficult to read at print resolution; please increase the font size or split it into clearly labeled subfigures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: GRIT's claimed performance is an empirical benchmark on held-out test splits, not a quantity defined by its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a supervised learning pipeline: five GraphSAGE encoders produce spatial embeddings, a multi-head temporal attention block transforms the temporal dimension, and a convolutional decoder outputs thickness values for the 15 deeper layers; the model is trained with MSE loss on disjoint image splits and evaluated by RMSE on held-out test sets. Nothing in the equations or dataset construction defines the reported 3.0597 m RMSE in terms of the inputs or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The baselines are prior works from the same research group, but the paper states that all networks were retrained on the same machine with the same number of epochs and five random data permutations, so Table I is not a citation-based assertion of superiority. The main legitimate concern is a training-protocol confound (GRIT uses an adaptive learning-rate scheduler starting at 0.001, while every baseline uses a step scheduler starting at 0.01) and the absence of an ablation isolating the temporal attention block; those are correctness and rigor issues, not circularity, because the reported numbers are still empirical outcomes. No load-bearing argument in the paper reduces to a self-citation or a definitional equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical machine learning benchmark. The hand-chosen hyperparameters and domain assumptions listed above constitute the main degrees of freedom the central claim rests on; the model's learned weights are the object of study, not hidden free parameters.

free parameters (6)

Number of input ice layers m = 5
Hand-chosen test case; the method claims generality but only m=5 is evaluated.
Number of output ice layers n = 15
Hand-chosen test case; the prediction target is the next 15 layers.
Number of nodes per spatial graph = 256
Each radargram is resampled to 256 nodes per layer; the sampling method is not described.
Number of attention heads = 8
Copied from Vaswani et al. without ablation.
Initial learning rate for GRIT = 0.001
Hand-chosen and different from the 0.01 used for baselines, which confounds the comparison.
Training epochs = 450
Chosen to ensure 'full convergence'; no early stopping criterion specified beyond scheduler patience of 16 epochs.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Manually labeled ice layer boundaries by NASA scientists are accurate enough to serve as ground truth.
Section III: 'Labeled images are then generated by manually labeling the boundaries of each ice layer in the radargram by NASA scientists.' The entire supervised training depends on label quality.
domain assumption A 256-node graph per layer with inverse haversine edge weights captures the spatial structure of the ice layer.
Section V-A: 'Each spatial graph consists of 256 nodes connected by undirected edges. Edge weights are computed as the inverse distance of the geographic distance between node locations via the haversine formula.'
domain assumption Thickness values of the top 5 layers are predictive of the thickness of the next 15 layers.
This is the task definition in Section IV and V-A; the paper does not test alternative input configurations.
domain assumption The five random dataset permutations provide a meaningful estimate of model performance variability.
Section V-B: 'we create five different versions of the training, validation, and testing datasets by applying various random permutations.' No paired significance testing is reported.
domain assumption The edge weight formula in Eq. 5 is a correct distance measure.
Eq. 5 appears to omit the square root and Earth radius from the standard haversine distance, so the graph weights may not reflect true geographic distances.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GRIT: Graph Transformer For Internal Ice Layer Thickness Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/46QJRKJQ

@misc{pith2026250707388,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GRIT: Graph Transformer For Internal Ice Layer Thickness Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/46QJRKJQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07388}
}

read the original abstract

Gaining a deeper understanding of the thickness and variability of internal ice layers in Radar imagery is essential in monitoring the snow accumulation, better evaluating ice dynamics processes, and minimizing uncertainties in climate models. Radar sensors, capable of penetrating ice, capture detailed radargram images of internal ice layers. In this work, we introduce GRIT, graph transformer for ice layer thickness. GRIT integrates an inductive geometric graph learning framework with an attention mechanism, designed to map the relationships between shallow and deeper ice layers. Compared to baseline graph neural networks, GRIT demonstrates consistently lower prediction errors. These results highlight the attention mechanism's effectiveness in capturing temporal changes across ice layers, while the graph transformer combines the strengths of transformers for learning long-range dependencies with graph neural networks for capturing spatial patterns, enabling robust modeling of complex spatiotemporal dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07388 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Qualitative results of GRIT predictions. The green line is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Chapter 12 - glaciers and ice sheets,

S. A. Arcone, “Chapter 12 - glaciers and ice sheets,” in Ground Penetrating Radar Theory and Applications , H. M. Jol, Ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2009, pp. 361–392. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/B9780444533487000120

work page 2009
[3]

Cresis airborne radars and platforms for ice and snow sounding,

E. Arnold, C. Leuschen, F. Rodriguez-Morales, J. Li, J. Paden, R. Hale, and S. Keshmiri, “Cresis airborne radars and platforms for ice and snow sounding,” Annals of Glaciology , vol. 61, no. 81, p. 58–67, 2020

work page 2020
[4]

Prediction of deep ice layer thickness using adaptive recurrent graph neural networks,

B. Zalatan and M. Rahnemoonfar, “Prediction of deep ice layer thickness using adaptive recurrent graph neural networks,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2023, pp. 2835–2839

work page 2023
[5]

Prediction of annual snow accumulation using a recur- rent graph convolutional approach,

——, “Prediction of annual snow accumulation using a recur- rent graph convolutional approach,” in IGARSS 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Sympo- sium, 2023, pp. 5344–5347

work page 2023
[6]

Recurrent graph convolutional networks for spatiotem- poral prediction of snow accumulation using airborne radar,

——, “Recurrent graph convolutional networks for spatiotem- poral prediction of snow accumulation using airborne radar,” in 2023 IEEE Radar Conference (RadarConf23) , 2023, pp. 1–6

work page 2023
[7]

Learning spatio-temporal patterns of polar ice layers with physics-informed graph neural network,

Z. Liu and M. Rahnemoonfar, “Learning spatio-temporal patterns of polar ice layers with physics-informed graph neural network,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406. 15299

work page 2024
[8]

Multi-branch spatio-temporal graph neural network for efficient ice layer thickness prediction,

——, “Multi-branch spatio-temporal graph neural network for efficient ice layer thickness prediction,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.04055

arXiv 2024
[9]

Physics-informed machine learning for deep ice layer tracing in sar images,

M. Rahnemoonfar and B. Zalatan, “Physics-informed machine learning for deep ice layer tracing in sar images,” in IGARSS 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sens- ing Symposium , 2024, pp. 6938–6942

work page 2024

Show all 22 references

[10]

Learning snow layer thickness through physics defined labels,

D. Varshney, O. Ibikunle, J. Paden, and M. Rahnemoonfar, “Learning snow layer thickness through physics defined labels,” in IGARSS 2022 - 2022 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium , 2022, pp. 1233–1236

2022
[11]

Deep ice layer tracking and thickness estimation using fully convo- lutional networks,

D. Varshney, M. Rahnemoonfar, M. Yari, and J. Paden, “Deep ice layer tracking and thickness estimation using fully convo- lutional networks,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) , 2020, pp. 3943–3952

2020
[12]

Deep learning on airborne radar echograms for tracing snow accumulation layers of the greenland ice sheet,

D. Varshney, M. Rahnemoonfar, M. Yari, J. Paden, O. Ibikunle, and J. Li, “Deep learning on airborne radar echograms for tracing snow accumulation layers of the greenland ice sheet,” Remote Sensing , vol. 13, no. 14, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/14/2707

2021
[13]

Deep multi-scale learning for automatic tracking of internal layers of ice in radar data,

M. Rahnemoonfar, M. Yari, J. Paden, L. Koenig, and O. Ibikunle, “Deep multi-scale learning for automatic tracking of internal layers of ice in radar data,” Journal of Glaciology , vol. 67, no. 261, p. 39–48, 2021

2021
[14]

Airborne snow radar data simulation with deep learning and physics-driven methods,

M. Yari, O. Ibikunle, D. Varshney, T. Chowdhury, A. Sarkar, J. Paden, J. Li, and M. Rahnemoonfar, “Airborne snow radar data simulation with deep learning and physics-driven methods,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 14, pp...

2021
[15]

Deep hybrid wavelet network for ice boundary de- tection in radra imagery,

H. Kamangir, M. Rahnemoonfar, D. Dobbs, J. Paden, and G. Fox, “Deep hybrid wavelet network for ice boundary de- tection in radra imagery,” in IGARSS 2018 - 2018 IEEE Inter- national Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium , 2018, pp. 3449–3452

2018
[16]

Refining ice layer tracking through wavelet combined neural networks,

D. Varshney, M. Yari, T. Chowdhury, and M. Rahnemoonfar, “Refining ice layer tracking through wavelet combined neural networks,” in ICML 2021 Workshop on Tackling Climate Change with Machine Learning , 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.climatechange.ai/papers/icml2021/49

2021
[17]

Evolvegcn: Evolving graph convolutional networks for dynamic graphs,

A. Pareja, G. Domeniconi, J. Chen, T. Ma, T. Suzumura, H. Kanezashi, T. Kaler, and C. E. Leiserson, “Evolvegcn: Evolving graph convolutional networks for dynamic graphs,” CoRR, vol. abs/1902.10191, 2019. [Online]. Available: http: //arxiv.org/abs/1902.10191

1902 arXiv
[18]

Ultra-wideband radars for remote sensing of snow and ice,

S. Gogineni, J. B. Yan, D. Gomez, F. Rodriguez-Morales, J. Paden, and C. Leuschen, “Ultra-wideband radars for remote sensing of snow and ice,” in IEEE MTT-S International Mi- crowave and RF Conference , 2013, pp. 1–4

2013
[19]

Icebridge snow radar l1b geolocated radar echo strength profiles,

C. Leuschen, B. Panzer, P. Gogineni, F. Rodriguez, J. Paden, and J. Li, “Icebridge snow radar l1b geolocated radar echo strength profiles,” Boulder, Colorado USA: National Snow and Ice Data Center. Digital media., 2011/2024, accessed on 2024

2011
[20]

Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,

T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, “Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02907

2017 arXiv
[21]

Inductive represen- tation learning on large graphs,

W. L. Hamilton, R. Ying, and J. Leskovec, “Inductive represen- tation learning on large graphs,” 2018

2018
[22]

Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications,

J. Zhou, G. Cui, S. Hu, Z. Zhang, C. Yang, Z. Liu, L. Wang, C. Li, and M. Sun, “Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications,” AI Open , vol. 1, pp. 57–81, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S2666651021000012

2020
[23]

Attention is all you need,

A. Vaswani, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2017

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Chapter 12 - glaciers and ice sheets,

S. A. Arcone, “Chapter 12 - glaciers and ice sheets,” in Ground Penetrating Radar Theory and Applications , H. M. Jol, Ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2009, pp. 361–392. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/B9780444533487000120

work page 2009

[2] [3]

Cresis airborne radars and platforms for ice and snow sounding,

E. Arnold, C. Leuschen, F. Rodriguez-Morales, J. Li, J. Paden, R. Hale, and S. Keshmiri, “Cresis airborne radars and platforms for ice and snow sounding,” Annals of Glaciology , vol. 61, no. 81, p. 58–67, 2020

work page 2020

[3] [4]

Prediction of deep ice layer thickness using adaptive recurrent graph neural networks,

B. Zalatan and M. Rahnemoonfar, “Prediction of deep ice layer thickness using adaptive recurrent graph neural networks,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2023, pp. 2835–2839

work page 2023

[4] [5]

Prediction of annual snow accumulation using a recur- rent graph convolutional approach,

——, “Prediction of annual snow accumulation using a recur- rent graph convolutional approach,” in IGARSS 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Sympo- sium, 2023, pp. 5344–5347

work page 2023

[5] [6]

Recurrent graph convolutional networks for spatiotem- poral prediction of snow accumulation using airborne radar,

——, “Recurrent graph convolutional networks for spatiotem- poral prediction of snow accumulation using airborne radar,” in 2023 IEEE Radar Conference (RadarConf23) , 2023, pp. 1–6

work page 2023

[6] [7]

Learning spatio-temporal patterns of polar ice layers with physics-informed graph neural network,

Z. Liu and M. Rahnemoonfar, “Learning spatio-temporal patterns of polar ice layers with physics-informed graph neural network,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406. 15299

work page 2024

[7] [8]

Multi-branch spatio-temporal graph neural network for efficient ice layer thickness prediction,

——, “Multi-branch spatio-temporal graph neural network for efficient ice layer thickness prediction,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.04055

arXiv 2024

[8] [9]

Physics-informed machine learning for deep ice layer tracing in sar images,

M. Rahnemoonfar and B. Zalatan, “Physics-informed machine learning for deep ice layer tracing in sar images,” in IGARSS 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sens- ing Symposium , 2024, pp. 6938–6942

work page 2024