Acta Oceanologica Sinica

Fo
A Three-step Approach Based on Deep Learning for High
Accuracy Bathymetry Inversion
rR

Journal: Acta Oceanologica Sinica

Manuscript ID AOS-2022-12-0277.R1
ev

Manuscript Type: Original Article

Bathymetry inversion, VGGNet, multibeam sonar, gravity anomaly,

Keywords:
iew

satellite altimetry

Speciality: Marine Remote Sensing

On
ly

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
Page 1 of 20 Acta Oceanologica Sinica

1
2
3
4 A Three-step Approach Based on Deep Learning for High
5
6
7 Accuracy Bathymetry Inversion
8
9
10 Abstract: Understanding the topographic patterns of the seafloor is a very important
11 part of understanding our planet. Although the science of bathymetry has advanced
12
13
much over the decades, less than 20% of the seafloor topography has been finely
14 modeled up to now, with an urgent need to address the improvement of accuracy and
15 reduction of uncertainty underwater. In this study, we introduce a deep learning
16
approach, augmented by VGGNet, to correct the satellite altimetry-derived marine
17
18 gravity anomaly model based on the ship-measured one, and invert the output into a
19 bathymetry model using a filtering method. We choose four data pairs from different
20 environments in the Southern Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea,
21
Fo

22 respectively, to evaluate the topographic correction results of the model. The

23 experiments show that the R2 is up to 0.834 among the results of the four experimental
24 groups, signifying a high correlation. Standard deviation (SD) and normalized root
rR

25
26
mean square error (NRMSE) are also evaluated, with their accuracy performance
27 improved by up to 24.2%, compared with similar research in recent years. The
28 evaluation of the R2 performance at different water depths shows that our model can
ev

29
achieve a performance above 0.90 in certain water depths, and at the same time can
30
31 achieve a significant improvement in the mid-water depths compared to previous
iew

32 research. Finally, the bathymetry corrected by our model is able to show an accuracy
33 improvement level of more than 21% within 1% of the total water depths, which is
34
35 sufficient to prove that the VGGNet-based method has the ability to perform a gravity-
36 bathymetry correction with outstanding results.
On

37
38
39
Keywords: Bathymetry inversion, VGGNet, multibeam sonar, gravity anomaly,
40 satellite altimetry.
ly

41
42
43 1 Introduction
44
45
46
47
Submarine topography survey is a basic marine mapping task, the purpose of which is
48 to obtain the three-dimensional coordinates of submarine topographic points, including
49 information such as position, water depth, water level, sound velocity and attitude
50
bearing, the core of which is bathymetry. Shipborne sounding is the most direct and
51
52 primitive method to detect the topography of the seafloor, undergone an iterative
53 evolution from single-beam to multibeam in terms of detection methods and at present,
54 multibeam echosounder sonar system is still one of the main methods for detecting the
55
56 topography of the seafloor. Multibeam sonar method has the advantage of high spatial
57 accuracy, which has enabled the underwater sounding mode to make a high-quality leap
58 from point to line and from line to surface (Li, 1999). However, the disadvantages of
59
60
low efficiency, high cost and the long measurement time required make it difficult to

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
 Acta Oceanologica Sinica Page 2 of 20

1
2
3
conduct frequent submarine surveys over a wide range of sea areas. As a result, the
4
5 coverage of shipborne surveys remains very sparse at present. It is estimated that only
6 less than 20% of the global submarine area is covered by shipborne survey, and a
7 significant proportion of this, especially in deep-sea areas, has relatively low accuracy
8
9 (Coley, 2022).
10
11 Satellite altimetry is a spatial measurement technique that uses artificial satellites as
12
13
carriers to measure the height of satellites to the Earth's surface using radar, laser and
14 other ranging techniques to obtain the topography of the Earth's surface (Zwally et al.,
15 2002). Satellites carrying radar altimeters measure the shape of the global seafloor
16
along orbits, from which maps of the ocean gravity field can be produced. The satellite
17
18 gravity field and existing depth measurements are used to determine the correlation
19 between gravity and seafloor topography, and by applying it to the gravity field, the
20 seafloor topography can be predicted in certain band (Smith and Sandwell, 1994; Smith
21
Fo

22 and Sandwell, 1997). In most cases, the accuracy of the seafloor topography model is
23 within ±100 m by gravity inversion. Although this model is a predicted dataset with
24 errors, it is still the best estimate for the large-scale and even global submarine
rR

25
26
topography available currently.
27
28 Parker (1972) derived a detailed expression for gravity in the frequency domain and
ev

29
proposed a material interface for the frequency domain model of gravity anomaly
30
31 variation caused by fluctuations, which laid the foundation for the development of
iew

32 submarine topography inversion. Ibrahim et al. (1972) proposed the Gravity Geological
33 Method (GGM) for rock height measurement under submarine terrestrial sediments,
34
35 which has been widely used in the inversion of seafloor topography in various seas ever
36 since (Oldenburg, 1974; Braitenberg, 2006; Ouyang et al., 2014). The Admittance
On

37 Theory of gravity anomalies based on the spectral relationship between the oceanic
38
39
gravity field and the seafloor topography was proposed in conjunction with the
40 equilibrium assumption of Airy (1855) and Parker (1972) to estimate the seafloor
ly

41 topography, and was applied in the study of modeling the submarine mountains (Watts
42
et al., 2006; Gong et al., 2021) and inversion of the seafloor topography (Ouyang et al.,
43
44 2015; Fan et al., 2020). Over the years, researchers have used these methods to produce
45 a variety of global seafloor topography models, such as the ETOPO, GEBCO, DTU
46 and SIO series.
47
48
49 With the increasing need for accuracy in marine scientific research in recent years, there
50 is limited room for improving the accuracy of submarine topography models obtained
51
52
by traditional gravity anomaly inversion from satellite altimetry, while shipborne
53 multibeam sonar and gravimetry, which have high accuracy characteristics, are often
54 confined to a relatively limited coverage (Yale et al., 1998; Shi et al., 2017). Therefore,
55
there is an urgent need to combine the advantages of their respective spatial coverage
56
57 and spatial resolution to achieve a large range, high accuracy and high flexibility of
58 submarine topographic inversion. In recent years, deep learning has gradually become
59 an important scientific computing tool in the field of digital image processing. Deep
60

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
Page 3 of 20 Acta Oceanologica Sinica

1
2
3
learning uses a layer-by-layer abstraction approach to efficiently and accurately achieve
4
5 the extraction of bottom to top-level attributes, and has made great contributions in the
6 fields of natural language processing (Otter et al., 2020), image and speech recognition
7 (Wu et al., 2015), remote sensing data fusion (Benedetti et al., 2018; Yuan et al., 2020).
8
9
10 The main issues associated with algorithm development or model formulation for
11 submarine topography parameter estimation are the complexity of the physical
12
13
processes involved and the uncertainties associated with them. Gatys et al. (2015; 2017)
14 proposed a method based on VGGNet, a convolutional neural network (CNN)
15 commonly used for high-precision visual recognition, to computationally extract the
16
style and content information of a set of input images and output a new fused image
17
18 with both style and content information of the input ones. Inspired by it, we can treat
19 the shipborne gravity data and satellite altimeter-derived gravity data as the input of
20 style and content information, respectively, in order to synthesis a new image data
21
Fo

22 through the VGGNet.

23
24 Jena et al. (2012) developed an artificial neural network (ANN) model based on radial
rR

25
26
basis function (RBF) to predict undetected seafloor topographic features using satellite
27 altimetry-derived gravity data, with the results showing better accuracy than global
28 bathymetry models. Moran (2020) provides an experiment-based evaluation of a
ev

29
variety of existing machine learning methods applied in global bathymetric inversion
30
31 and gives recommendations for model selection based on different regional conditions.
iew

32 Fan et al. (2020) introduced a method for predicting seafloor topography involving
33 vertical gravity gradients using a nonlinear least squares algorithm, with the accuracy
34
35 of its results demonstrating the feasibility of this algorithm compared with global
36 seafloor topography models. Zhu et al. (2021) used a multilayer perception (MLP)-
On

37 based neural network to correct satellite altimeter gravity by shipborne data. A

38
39
comparative analysis was found to achieve an effective and large-scale refinement of
40 the accuracy of the satellite-derived gravity anomaly model. Seoane et al. (2022) used
ly

41 an extended Kalman filter (EKF) method that iteratively integrates continuous input
42
gravity anomaly and geoid height data to simulate regional topographic models of the
43
44 seafloor in areas lacking ship-measured bathymetry. Annan and Wan (2022) introduced
45 the signal of vertical deflections in bathymetric inversion, which was concatenated with
46 gravity anomalies and vertical gravity gradients by an outperforming CNN,
47
48 demonstrating the usability of vertical deflections in bathymetric inversion. Chen et al.
49 (2022) applied a pretrained VGGNet model to perform correction to the satellite-
50 derived bathymetry based on multibeam sonar data, and the results showed that this
51
52
method could achieve significant enhancement to the accuracy of the satellite data.
53
54 In this study, a CNN-based optimization algorithm is proposed to correct the satellite
55
altimetry-derived gravity data with errors using a pre-trained VGGNet network with
56
57 shipborne marine gravity data as the truth value. The input of the model is the data to
58 be corrected and the output is the true value data, with the aim of obtaining the high
59 order image features in the intermediate layer. The role of the intermediate layer is to
60

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
 Acta Oceanologica Sinica Page 4 of 20

1
2
3
establish a deep abstraction relationship between the input and output values, i.e., to
4
5 convert the original image pixels into a complex understanding of the image features
6 and to construct a representation of the internal mapping. After calibrating the satellite-
7 derived gravity and inverting it to the seafloor topography model of the corresponding
8
9 area, a more accurate inversion of the bathymetry can be obtained.
10
11 The main contributions of this study are as follows.
12
13
14 1. A novel method is proposed to combine marine gravity correction based on
15 shipborne data with gravity-topography inversion to improve the accuracy of
16
satellite-derived bathymetric data.
17
18 2. The CNN-based VGGNet model is introduced to generate a satellite-derived
19 data with corrected accuracy by calculating and minimizing the distance (loss)
20 between the shipborne truth data and the satellite data with errors. The new
21
Fo

22 fused data will possess the advantages of both the high accuracy of the former
23 and the high coverage of the latter.
24 3. The performance of the model is validated by experiments on datasets from the
rR

25
26
Southern Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean, with the results showing
27 that this method is effective in improving the computational accuracy of the
28 inversion of the seafloor topography.
ev

29
30
31
2 Methodology
iew

32
33
34
35 The research structure of this paper is shown in Figure 1. Overall, relying on gravity
36 data pairs derived from ship measurements and satellite altimetry, the pre-trained
On

37
VGGNet model is able to implement the correction of satellite data with ship
38
39 measurements as the truth value in the framework of a neural network. After obtaining
40 the corrected satellite altimetry-derived gravity data, the corresponding bathymetric
ly

41 maps can be obtained by inversion, and the accuracy can be verified with the help of
42
43 shipborne multibeam sonar bathymetry data which can be considered as measured
44 values.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
Page 5 of 20 Acta Oceanologica Sinica

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo

22
23
24
rR

25
26
27
28
ev

29
30
31
iew

32 Figure 1. The research structure.

33
34
35
36 2.1 Framework of VGGNet
On

37
38 In recent years, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have made great progress in
39 the field of intelligent recognition of digital images, and some excellent algorithmic
40
models such as AlexNet (Krizhevsky et al., 2012), CaffeNet (Jia et al., 2014) and
ly

41
42 VGGNet (Simonyan et al., 2015) have emerged. VGGNet applies a very small field of
43 perception instead of a large area field, using 3 × 3 with a step size of 1. The decision
44
45 function is more discriminative because there are 3 ReLU units. There are also fewer
46 parameters, with 27 times the number of channels. Without modifying the perceptual
47 field, VGGNet uses a 1 × 1 convolutional layer to make the decision function more
48
49
nonlinear. Due to the tiny size of the convolutional filter, the VGGNet model can
50 have a considerable number of weight layers, which means better performance
51 potential. There are two general forms of VGGNet, VGG-16 and VGG-19, which are
52 not fundamentally different, but only differ in the depth of the network, with VGG-19
53
54 having three more convolution layers. Considering the experimental requirements and
55 data parameters, VGG-19, which can offer deeper information, is chosen in the
56 experiment. Compared with most previous CNN-originated models that have 4–7
57
58 layers, VGG-19 is constructed with 19 layers, including 16 convolutional layers and 3
59 fully connected layers, enabling it to extract the more abstract and more profound
60 image features and reduce the number of parameters while being able to retain the

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
 Acta Oceanologica Sinica Page 6 of 20

1
2
3
same receptive field. Thus, it has improved the efficiency and accuracy of image
4
5 computing (Huo et al., 2020; Islam et al., 2020; Schulz et al., 2020).
6
7 The structure of VGG-19 is displayed in Figure 2. The entire network uses the exact
8
9 size of convolution kernels (3 × 3) and maximum pooling kernels (2 × 2). The
10 combination of several small filter (3 × 3) convolutional layers is better than a large
11 one (5 × 5 or 7 × 7) as in the previous models. Since the convolution kernel focuses
12
13
on expanding the number of channels and the pooling kernel focuses on reducing the
14 width and height, the architecture is more profound and broader. At the same time, the
15 increase in calculation slows down, showing the network a larger receptive field. At
16
the same time, the network parameters are reduced, and the ReLU (Rectified Linear
17
18 Unit) activation function is used multiple times to create more linear transformations
19 to enhance the learning ability.
20
21
Fo

22
23
24
rR

25
26
27
28
ev

29
30
31
iew

32 Figure 2. Architecture of the VGG-19 model. The boxes represent the size of each layer.
33
34
35
36 2.2 Model Training Steps
On

37
38 We perform the correction of ocean gravity data using the model of VGG-19. The
39 overall framework is to take the satellite altimetric bathymetry data to be corrected as
40
input values and the multibeam sonar bathymetry data to be treated as truth values as
ly

41
42 output. These procedures allow the machine to train a rationalization in the
43 intermediate layer that minimizes the loss (distance) of this pair of datasets. The
44
45 principle of the correction model is to define a distance function that describes how
46 different the two input images are. The multibeam-derived data image and the satellite
47 altimetry-derived data image covering the same area are passed to the model, which is
48
49
supposed to return the intermediate layer outputs from the model. The distance
50 function 𝐿 that we use is shown below:
51
52
53
𝐿𝑙(𝑥,𝑝) = ∑(𝐹 (𝑥) ― 𝑃 (𝑝))
𝑖,𝑗
𝑙
𝑖𝑗
𝑙
𝑖𝑗
2
(1)
54
55 where 𝑥 stands for the multibeam sonar-derived bathymetry image, 𝑝 stands for the
56 satellite altimetry-derived bathymetry image, and 𝑖 and 𝑗 stand for the serial number
57
58
of pixel points of the input images. Let 𝑉𝑛𝑛 be a pre-trained VGG-19 network and 𝑋
59
60 be any image, then 𝑉𝑛𝑛(𝑋) is the network fed by 𝑋. Let 𝐹𝑙𝑖𝑗(𝑥)∈𝑉𝑛𝑛(𝑥) and 𝑃𝑙𝑖𝑗(𝑝)

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
Page 7 of 20 Acta Oceanologica Sinica

1
2
3
4 ∈𝑉𝑛𝑛(𝑝) describe the respective intermediate feature representation of the network
5
6 with the inputs 𝑥 and 𝑝 at layer 𝑙. At last, optimizers’ rules are applied to
7 iteratively update the images, which minimizes a given loss to the inputs.
8
9
10 The evaluation of the correction precision is based on comparisons with the previous
11 study. To quantify the differences and connections between the predicted value and
12
13
truth value, here we choose four evaluation measurements, root-mean-square error
14 (RMSE), normalized RMSE (NRMSE), coefficient of determination (R2), and
15 standard deviation (SD), as follows, respectively:
16 2
𝑛
17 ∑𝑖 = 1(𝑓𝑖 ― 𝑦𝑖)
18 𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 = (2)
19 𝑛
20
21 𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸
Fo

22 𝑁𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 = (3)
𝑦𝑚𝑎𝑥 ― 𝑦𝑚𝑖𝑛
23
24
𝑛
rR

25 ∑𝑖 = 1(𝑦𝑖 ― 𝑓𝑖)2
26 𝑅2 = 1 ― (4)
𝑛
27 ∑𝑖 = 1(𝑦𝑖 ― 𝑦)2
28
ev

29 𝑛
30 ∑𝑖 = 1(𝑓𝑖 ― 𝑓)2
31 𝑆𝐷 = (5)
iew

32 𝑛
33 where 𝑛 represents the number of the values from the dataset, 𝑖 represents the serial
34
35 number of the value from the dataset, 𝑓 represents the predicted values, and 𝑦
36 represents the truth values. As a standardization process, NRMSE is able to limit the
On

37 value of RMSE to a certain range, eliminate the influence of the scale between
38
39
indicators, and solve the comparability among data indicators. NRMSE and R2
40 usually range from 0 to 1. The smaller RMSE, NRMSE, SD and bigger R2 mean that
ly

41 there is a higher correlation and more stable distribution of the datasets.

42
43
44 The default hyperparameters used in the VGG-19 training model are shown in Table
45 1. In the experiments, the weights between the content layer, style layer, content, style
46 and total variance loss are set to maintain approximately the same order of magnitude.
47
48 The learning rate is set so that the iterations occur in a convergent process and that the
49 loss curves decrease smoothly.
50
51
Table 1. The default hyperparameters of the training model.
52
53 Hyperparameters Settings
54 Content layer ‘conv4_2’
55
56
‘conv1_1’, ‘conv2_1’, ‘conv3_1’, ‘conv4_1’,
Style layers
57 ‘conv5_1’
58 Weight of loss at content
59 1
layer
60

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
 Acta Oceanologica Sinica Page 8 of 20

1
2
3
4
Weights of loss at style
1, 1, 1, 1
5 layers
6 Weights among content,
7 1 × 10-4, 1, 1 × 10-5
style, and total variation loss
8
9 Learning rate starts at 10, linear decay over 100 iterations to 1
10
11
12
13
2.3 Inversion of Bathymetry
14
15 For the obtained corrected satellite-derived gravity data, we invert them using the
16 filter method (Smith and Sandwell, 1994) to obtain the corresponding bathymetric
17
data. The filter method combines equilibrium theory, conductivity theory and gravity
18
19 noise signal ratio to propose a low-pass and band-pass filter-based method to predict
20 bathymetry using gravity data. The prediction combines the long wavelength (>160
21 km) from the low-pass filtered bathymetry and the mid-wavelength data from the
Fo

22
23 band-pass filter. The mid-wavelength bathymetry is determined using a scaling factor
24 𝑆, which is determined empirically by robust regression and reflects the correlation
rR

25 between the gravity data and the available bathymetry data in the 15-160 km band
26
27
(Hu et al., 2020). The calculation process is shown in Figure 3.
28
ev

29
30
31
iew

32
33
34
35
36
On

37
38
39
40
ly

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49 Figure 3. The calculation process of the filter method.
50
51
52 3 Data and Experiments
53
54
55 3.1 Experimental Data
56
57
58 In the experiment, the satellite altimeter-derived gravity anomaly data used are acquired
59 at Bureau Gravimetrique International (BGI) (Bonvalot et al., 2012). The shipborne
60 gravity anomaly data and multibeam sonar bathymetry data used are acquired at

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
Page 9 of 20 Acta Oceanologica Sinica

1
2
3
National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) of National Oceanic and Atmospheric
4
5 Administration (NOAA) (NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information,
6 2004; 2015). The interpolation preprocessing is applied to convert the shipborne point
7 cloud data into gridded data. For data of different sources, raster resampling is applied
8
9 to unify their resolution for subsequent analysis.
10
11 A total of four pairs of shipborne gravity-satellite gravity-multibeam bathymetry
12
13
datasets from the Southern Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, and Caribbean Sea,
14 respectively, were selected, as shown in Figure 4 with detailed information listed in
15 Table 2. We have not included the temporal resolution of these data in the table, taking
16
into account the temporal scale of ocean variability.
17
18
19
20
21
Fo

22
23
24
rR

25
26
27
28
ev

29
30
31
iew

32
33
34
35
36
On

37
38
Figure 4. The geographical location of the dataset from (a) Southern Ocean, (b) Pacific Ocean, (c)
39
40 Atlantic Ocean, and (d) Caribbean Sea.
ly

41
42 Table 2. The parameters of the datasets.
43
44 Center Spatial Data Size Area Bathymetry
45 Point Resolution (km2) Depth
46 Coordinates (m) Range (m)
47
48 Southern 93 5,097,104 43,700
71°S, 173°E －4077~－
49 Ocean
50 211
51
52 Pacific 93 33,048,000 283,337
9°S, 140°W －4992~－
53 Ocean
54 113
55
Atlantic 93 3,240,000 27,778
56 32°N, 65°W －4920~－
57 Ocean
58 58
59
60

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
 Acta Oceanologica Sinica Page 10 of 20

1
2
3
Caribbean 123 10,614,363 150,310
4 18°N, 82°W －6580~－1
5 Sea
6
7 In the process of correction, we randomly split the datasets in two, with 50% used as
8
9 the training set to debug the parameters in the network and the remaining 50% used as
10 the validation set to tune the hyperparameters of the model and to conduct a preliminary
11 evaluation of the performance of the model.
12
13
14 3.2 Analysis of Results
15
16 A loss function is applied to estimate the degree of inconsistency between the predicted
17 (corrected) and truth values of the model, as shown in Figure 5. It is a non-negative
18
19 real-valued function, with the smaller the loss function, the better the robustness of the
20 model, and vice versa. As can be seen from the results, in the experiments conduct in
21 the four regions, a sudden drop in loss occurred in the first 20 epochs. After dropping
Fo

22
23
to between 0.1 and 0.2 the loss starts to decline gently, with this phenomenon being
24 more pronounced after 70 epochs. No significant overfitting is found from the curves.
rR

25 This performance of the loss function demonstrates the usefulness of the VGG-19
26
model for gravity correction.
27
28
ev

29
30
31
iew

32
33
34
35
36
On

37
38
39
40
ly

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 Figure 5. The training and validation loss from the experiment of (a) Southern Ocean, (b) Pacific

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
Page 11 of 20 Acta Oceanologica Sinica

1
2
3 Ocean, (c) Atlantic Ocean, and (d) Caribbean Sea.
4
5
6 The output of the model results in corrected gravity anomaly. To visualize the
7 correction results, we select three sites with differences and visual representativeness
8
9 in each of the four experimental areas for comparative display, as shown in Figure 6.
10 As can be seen from the figure, generally speaking, the corrected data texture is much
11 finer and more consistent with the actual gravity field distribution on the seafloor. This
12
13
provides a foundation for the following work of bathymetry inversion.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo

22
23
24
rR

25
26
27
28
ev

29
30
31
iew

32
33
34
35
36
On

37
38
39
40
ly

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
 Acta Oceanologica Sinica Page 12 of 20

1
2
3 Figure 6. Comparison of local details of gravity anomaly before and after correction from (a)
4
5 Southern Ocean, (b) Pacific Ocean, (c) Atlantic Ocean, and (d) Caribbean Sea.
6
7 The overall accuracy of the correction process has been verified and the performance
8
9 of the parameters is presented in Table 3. In terms of R2, it can be seen that the four
10 datasets perform similarly, all around 0.80, indicating a high correlation between the
11 corrected bathymetry and the true values. There is some degree of positive correlation
12
13
between the differences in performance of SD and RMSE for the four datasets, with
14 values relating to the range of water depths in the experimental area. A comparison of
15 NRMSE performance against the same criteria shows that the Atlantic data have the
16
best correction accuracy, followed by the Southern Ocean and Pacific Ocean data, while
17
18 the Caribbean Sea ones rank the last. In comparison with similar studies in recent years
19 we have found that this method is effective in improving accuracy by up to 15.4%
20 (gravity-bathymetry correction) or 24.2% (bathymetry-only correction), demonstrating
21
Fo

22 that this VGGNet method enables a new level of accuracy in seafloor topography
23 correction (Annan and Wan, 2022; Chen et al., 2022).
24
rR

25
Table 3. The overall accuracy of the bathymetry correction.
26
27 R2 SD (m) RMSE (m) NRMSE
28 Southern Ocean 0.822 104.790 107.024 0.027
ev

29
30
Pacific Ocean 0.834 117.630 126.366 0.026
31 Atlantic Ocean 0.833 124.847 136.622 0.028
iew

32 Caribbean Sea 0.783 139.583 164.475 0.025

33
34
35 By comparing the variation in R2 values at different water depths, we plot the
36 relationship between the two parameters, as shown in Figure 7. It can be seen that for
On

37 the results of all four experimental areas, the minimum values of R2 are above 0.2, all
38
39 occurring at the extremes of water depth. The maximum values of R2 are all above 0.9,
40 whose occurring depth values vary from one area to another, indicating that the
ly

41 correction model is able to invert bathymetry with high accuracy over a range of water
42
43
depths.
44
45
46
Looking at the data separately for each region, in the Southern Ocean, the accuracy
47
48 climbs to a maximum plateau in the water depth range around -2000 m to -1600 m and
49 then begins to slowly decline, with a steep drop occurring around -200 m. In the Pacific
50 data, the accuracy climbs more rapidly from the beginning, reaching an extreme value
51
52 near -4000 m, and then begins a gentle decline to near 0.5. The curve for the Atlantic
53 data behaves generally similarly to the former, with accuracy rising rapidly to a
54 maximum near -4000 m and starting to decline to around 0.4 gently, however with a
55
56
large downward trend in the last 100 m of the gradient. Finally, in the Caribbean Sea
57 data, the curve shows a different trend, with more isolated points at the water depth
58 extremes and a more rugged overall curve trend. The fit lines show that the accuracy of
59
the data in this region has local peaks at -5000 m, -4000 m to -3000 m, and -2500 m,
60

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
Page 13 of 20 Acta Oceanologica Sinica

1
2
3
with the last one being the highest, and the changes at the depth extremes are both
4
5 steeper.
6
7 As a rule of thumb, the accuracy of deep learning models tends to be positively
8
9 correlated with the sample size. With other parameters held constant, the larger the data
10 sample, the higher the training accuracy tends to be, and vice versa. In the experiment,
11 the analysis combined with the histogram of the data points distribution shows that the
12
13
lowest R2 tends to be exhibited where the number of data points is the lowest or sparsest,
14 such as at the extremes of water depth. In contrast, the depths where higher levels of R2
15 occur tend to be the depths with the largest and most concentrated distribution of data
16
points. Then, the underwater morphological specificity in the experimental areas can
17
18 also have some impact on the training accuracy. For example, in the Caribbean Sea
19 dataset, the large and fragmented distribution of local islands can lead to greater
20 irregular gravity and bathymetric undulations within some regions, which may become
21
Fo

22 a factor affecting the output accuracy. In addition, since the spatial resolution of the
23 Caribbean Sea data is about a quarter lower than that of the other three, it may also be
24 one of the reasons for the less satisfactory accuracy performance of this dataset.
rR

25
26
27
28
ev

29
30
31
iew

32
33
34
35
36
On

37
38
39
40
ly

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 Figure 7. Performance of R2 at different water depths and its comparison with the method of
60

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
 Acta Oceanologica Sinica Page 14 of 20

1
2
3 bathymetry-only correction from (a) Southern Ocean, (b) Pacific Ocean, (c) Atlantic Ocean, and
4
5 (d) Caribbean Sea.
6
7 To make the accuracy validation more comparable, we rework each of the four datasets
8
9 according to the bathymetry refinement method in Chen et al. (2022) and overlay the
10 fit trend lines of the accuracy results in Figure 7 for comparison. It can be summarized
11 that, in general, our gravity-bathymetry correction method can effectively improve the
12
13
accuracy compared to the bathymetry-only method. For the maximum performance of
14 the accuracy of the data set in each experimental area, there is not much difference
15 between the two methods. However, the gravity-bathymetry method is able to improve
16
the accuracy mainly in the area of intermediate water depths. Specifically, in the
17
18 comparison of the performance of the Southern Ocean dataset, it can be observed that
19 the R2 performance of the bathymetry-only method has started to decline starting near
20 -2500 m, while the performance of our method has just started to overtake and is
21
Fo

22 preparing to reach a stable plateau until within -1000 m, when the two methods have
23 their respective leads. In the comparison of the Pacific dataset, our performance leads
24 from the extreme water depth until around -4000m. Between approximately -3000 m
rR

25
26
and -1000 m, our method also appears to be significantly higher performing. However,
27 in shallow waters up to -1000 m, our method underperforms the bathymetry-only
28 method. In the Atlantic dataset, the performance of our method leads for a long time in
ev

29
the depth range of approximately -4500 m to -1000 m, but is again overtaken in shallow
30
31 waters. In the Caribbean Sea dataset, the two methods perform closest to each other,
iew

32 with alternating leads occurring from time to time. Our method outperforms the
33 bathymetry-only method mostly in the range of extreme depths to near -5000 m, about
34
35 -4500 m to -3500 m and -2000 m to -1000 m.
36
On

37 It can be discovered that the gravity-bathymetry correction method has a more excellent
38
39
R2 performance in the intermediate water depths range and can improve the overall
40 accuracy as well, however, if we focus only on the range up to approximately -1000 m,
ly

41 the performance of it, on the contrary, is inferior to the bathymetry-only method. It is

42
presumed to be related to the band-limited correlation of the satellite gravity-
43
44 bathymetry signals within the corresponding water depths (Smith and Sandwell, 1994;
45 1997; Sandwell et al, 2022).
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
Page 15 of 20 Acta Oceanologica Sinica

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo

22
23
24
rR

25
26
27
28 Figure 8. Percentage distributions of NRMSE (×10-3) performance in dataset from (a) Southern
ev

29 Ocean, (b) Pacific Ocean, (c) Atlantic Ocean, and (d) Caribbean Sea.
30
31
iew

32 We also apply NRMSE, the normalized metric of RMSE, for the comparative
33 evaluation of the correction effect in the four experimental areas, as plotted in Figure 8
34
35 (the values on the horizontal axis are magnified by a factor of 1000 for simplicity of
36 display). From the figure, it can be found that the NRMSE performance curves of the
On

37 four regions almost all follow the form of high in the middle - low at the edges, thus
38
39
can be concluded that the majority of the data points are distributed in the interval of
40 moderate performance. The extreme values of the performance of the four regions are
ly

41 almost identical and are distributed between 0.010 and 0.035. No obvious prominent
42
peak areas can be seen in the performance curves of the Southern Ocean data, instead
43
44 a relatively stable plateau distribution with localized ups and downs is observed. The
45 peak in the Pacific data occurs around 0.017 and then begins to decline, but there is a
46 small local peak around 0.032, indicating a less desirable sudden change in accuracy at
47
48 certain data points. The Atlantic dataset behaves similarly to that of the Pacific, with
49 the difference that it has a bimodal structure with two local peaks between 0.015 and
50 0.020 to 0.025, with the former of which higher than the latter. It is worth mentioning
51
52
that the percentage of data points corresponding to the maximum peak in the curve of
53 the Atlantic Ocean is the highest among the four data sets, which proves the more
54 concentrated distribution of its high-precision data points. Compared with the right-
55
skewed distribution exhibited by the upper two datasets, the curve of the Caribbean Sea
56
57 dataset shows a clear left-skewed distribution, i.e., a larger distribution of lower
58 precision data points, symbolizing a relatively unsatisfactory precision, despite its
59 better-than-average peak share. It is also evident from Table 3 that the accuracy of the
60

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
 Acta Oceanologica Sinica Page 16 of 20

1
2
3
Caribbean data is relatively the lowest.
4
5
6 Table 4. Proportion of corrected errors from truth values within 2% and 1% of the depth range.
7 1% of depth (%) 2% of depth (%)
8
9 Southern Ocean 68.05 75.69
10 Pacific Ocean 61.53 77.52
11 Atlantic Ocean 57.58 68.69
12
13 Caribbean Sea 51.03 64.58
14
15 To demonstrate the effect of the correction more intuitively, we then subtract the
16
17
corrected bathymetric values from the truth values. For the absolute values of the
18 obtained differences, they are calculated as a percentage of the total water depth, with
19 results shown in Table 4. As can be seen from the table, the number of data points
20
decreases as the margin of error narrows. The mean percentage of data points in the
21
Fo

22 four experimental areas is about 71.62% within a 2% water depth range error, while
23 about 59.55% within a 1% error. A comparison with the results of the bathymetry-only
24 correction method proposed in Chen et al. (2022) shows that our gravimetry-
rR

25
26 bathymetry combined correction method, while improving the accuracy by a mere 1.47%
27 in the 2% water depth range error, improves by a larger 21.01% in the 1% error range.
28 In this comparison it can be concluded that the improvement of our novel method for
ev

29
30
accuracy lies to a large extent within the 1% water depth range error, despite of its lack
31 of significance in the 1% to 2% interval.
iew

32
33
In summary, among these evaluation indicators, the correction performance of the
34
35 Southern Ocean is relatively the most outstanding, while the Pacific Ocean and the
36 Atlantic Ocean performances are similar and each has its own leading edge, and the
On

37 performance of the Caribbean Sea ranks the fourth in most cases.

38
39
40
4 Conclusions
ly

41
42
43
44 In this study, we propose a deep learning-based inversion solution to address the current
45 problem of lack of high-precision modeling of seafloor topography. We output the
46
47 refinement of the satellite-derived gravity anomaly model based on a pre-trained
48 VGGNet model by training the shipborne gravity anomaly data by the inspiration of
49 neural style transfer algorithm to minimize the distance (loss) between the two datasets.
50
51
For the obtained corrected gravity anomaly model, we use the conventional filtering
52 method to invert it and derive what can be considered as a corrected bathymetry model.
53
54
55
56 Four gravity-bathymetry data pairs from the Southern Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Atlantic
57 Ocean, and Caribbean Sea are selected to evaluate the accuracy of the corrected
58 bathymetry model. Through the evaluation based on R2, SD, RMSE and NRMSE
59
60 metrics, we find that it can improve the accuracy by up to over 15%, compared with

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
Page 17 of 20 Acta Oceanologica Sinica

1
2
3
previous gravity-bathymetry correction method, or over 24%, compared with the
4
5 previous bathymetry-only correction method. With the water depths-R2 and RMSE
6 proportion plotting, we conclude that this method can effectively improve the fineness
7 of bathymetry. More quantitatively, our method has the best correction for the top 1%
8
9 of the total depth range of data points, which is more than 21% better compared to
10 previous research. This demonstrates that the proposed model is useful and efficient as
11 a novel approach to modeling submarine topography on a large scale of refinement.
12
13
14 As for the factors affecting the differences in accuracy in different experimental areas,
15 as mentioned before, the specificity of the seafloor topography can have an important
16
effect. For instance, the scale of the water depth, the complexity of the geomorphology
17
18 and the interference of land (islands) factors, are all possibilities that can cause errors
19 in the signals of the ship measurement instruments (Smith and Sandwell, 1994; 1997;
20 Koh et al., 2022). For signals transmitted by satellites, the latitude of the operational
21
Fo

22 orbit is a factor that affects their performance. In addition, the band limitations of the
23 gravity-depth signal for altimetry and its relation to the geological environment also
24 exert an influence (Scharroo and Visser, 1998). These systematic errors are all factors
rR

25
26
that need to be taken into account.
27
28 As for the factors of the model itself, the generalization can have an impact on its ability
ev

29
to predict new unknown data. Currently, only the Adam optimizer is applied in this pre-
30
31 trained model. A comparison of different types of optimizers should be discussed before
iew

32 future experiments in order to select the one that can balance the loss and generalization
33 performance (Reddi et al., 2018). Furthermore, instead of dividing the training and
34
35 validation sets within the dataset itself, it is also worth discussing whether selecting a
36 completely new dataset as the validation set to be applied in the training process will
On

37 improve the correction accuracy of the model.

38
39
40
5 References
ly

41
42
43
44 Airy G B. On the computation of the effect of the attraction of mountain-masses,
45 as disturbing the apparent astronomical latitude of stations in geodetic surveys[J].
46
47
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1855 III (145): 101-104.
48 https://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1855.0003
49 Annan, R.F., Wan, X. Recovering Bathymetry of the Gulf of Guinea Using
50
Altimetry-Derived Gravity Field Products Combined via Convolutional Neural
51
52 Network. Surv. Geophys., 43, 1541–1561 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-022-
53 09720-5
54 Benedetti P, Ienco D, Gaetano R, et al. M3Fusion: A Deep Learning Architecture
55
56 for Multiscale Multimodal Multitemporal Satellite Data Fusion [J]. IEEE Journal of
57 Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 2018, 11(12):
58 4939-4949. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2018.2876357
59
60
Bonvalot, S., Balmino, G., Briais, A., M. Kuhn, Peyrefitte, A., Vales N., Biancale,

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
 Acta Oceanologica Sinica Page 18 of 20

1
2
3
R., Gabalda, G., Reinquin, F., Sarrailh, M., 2012. World Gravity Map. Commission for
4
5 the Geological Map of the World. Eds. BGI-CGMW-CNES-IRD, Paris. https://bgi.obs-
6 mip.fr/data-products/grids-and-models/wgm2012-global-model/ (accessed on 14 June
7 2022).
8
9 Braitenberg C, Wienecke S, Wang Y. Basement structures from satellite‐derived
10 gravity field: South China Sea ridge[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth,
11 2006, 111(B5). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JB003938
12
13
Chen, X., Luo, X., Wu, Z., Qin, X., Shang, J., Wang, M., and Wan, H.: An
14 Improved Method Based on VGGNet for Refined Bathymetry from Satellite Altimetry:
15 Reducing the Errors Effectively, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss. [preprint],
16
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-140, in review, 2022
17
18 Coley, K. A Global Ocean Map is Not an Ambition, but a Necessity to Support the
19 Ocean Decade. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 2022, 56, 9–12.
20 https://doi.org/10.4031/MTSJ.56.3.3
21
Fo

22 Deng L, Hinton G, Kingsbury B. New types of deep neural network learning for
23 speech recognition and related applications: An overview[C]//2013 IEEE international
24 conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing. IEEE, 2013: 8599-8603.
rR

25
26
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2013.6639344
27 Fan D, Li S, Meng S, et al. Applying iterative method to solving high-order terms
28 of seafloor topography[J]. Marine Geodesy, 2020, 43(1): 63-85.
ev

29
https://doi.org/10.1080/01490419.2019.1670298
30
31 Fan, D.; Li, S.; Li, X.; Yang, J.; Wan, X. Seafloor Topography Estimation from
iew

32 Gravity Anomaly and Vertical Gravity Gradient Using Nonlinear Iterative Least Square
33 Method. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 64. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs13010064
34
35 Gatys, L. A.; Ecker, A. S.; Bethge, M. A Neural Algorithm of Artistic Style. J. Vis.
36 2015, 16, 326. https://doi.org/10.1167/16.12.326.
On

37 Gatys, L. A.; Ecker, A. S.; Bethge, M.; Hertzmann, A.; Shechtman, E. Controlling
38
39
Perceptual Factors in Neural Style Transfer. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on
40 Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Honolulu, HI, USA, 22–25 July 2017.
ly

41 https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2017.397
42
Gong Z, Zhang P, Zheng W, et al. The effect of altimetry data in estimating the
43
44 elastic thickness of the lithosphere in the western Pacific Ocean[J]. Geodesy and
45 Geodynamics, 2021, 12(5): 315-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geog.2021.07.001
46 Hu, M.; Zhang, S.; Jin, T.; Wen, H.; Chu, Y.; Jiang, W.; Li, J. A New Generation
47
48 of Global Bathymetry Model BAT_WHU2020. Acta. Geod. et Cartogr. Sin. 2020, 49,
49 939-954. https://doi.org/10.11947/j.AGCS.2020.20190526
50 Huo, G.; Wu, Z.; Li, J. Underwater Object Classification in Sidescan Sonar Images
51
52
Using Deep Transfer Learning and Sem-isynthetic Training Data. IEEE Access. 2020,
53 8, 47407–47418. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2978880
54 Ibrahim A, Hinze W J. Mapping buried bedrock topography with gravity[J].
55
Groundwater, 1972, 10(3): 18-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1972.tb02921.x
56
57 Islam, M.J.; Xia, Y.; Sattar, J. Fast Underwater Image Enhancement for Improved
58 Visual Perception. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2020, 5, 3227–3234.
59 https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2020.2974710
60

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
Page 19 of 20 Acta Oceanologica Sinica

1
2
3
Jia, Y.; Shelhamer, E.; Donahue, J.; Karayev, S.; Long, J.; Girshick, R.;
4
5 Guadarrama, S.; Darrell, T. Caffe: Convolutional Ar-chitecture for Fast Feature
6 Embedding. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference, Orlando, FL,
7 USA, 3–7 November 2014. https://doi.org/10.1145/2647868.2654889
8
9 Jena, B., Kurian, P. J., Swain, D., Tyagi, A., and Ravindra, R.: Prediction of
10 bathymetry from satellite altimeter based gravity in the Arabian Sea: Mapping of two
11 unnamed deep seamounts, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 16, 1-4,
12
13
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.201r1.11.008, 2012
14 Koh Z W, Nimmo F, Lunine J I, et al. Assessing the Detectability of Europa’s
15 Seafloor Topography from Europa Clipper’s Gravity Data[J]. The Planetary Science
16
Journal, 2022, 3(8): 197. https://doi.org/10.3847/PSJ/ac82aa
17
18 Krizhevsky, A.; Sutskever, I.; Hinton, G.E. ImageNet Classification with Deep
19 Convolutional Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference
20 on Neural Information Processing Systems, Lake Tahoe, NV, USA, 3–6 December
21
Fo

22 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3065386
23 Li, J.: Multibeam Survey Principles, Techniques and Methods, Ocean Press,
24 Beijing, China, 1999
rR

25
26
Moran, N. P.: Machine Learning Model Selection for Predicting Global
27 Bathymetry, M.S. thesis, University of New Orleans, USA, 51 pp., 2020
28 NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information: Multibeam Bathymetry
ev

29
Database (MBBDB), NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information,
30
31 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/bathymetry/, 2004 (accessed on 14 June 2014).
iew

32 NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information: Marine Trackline

33 Geophysical Database, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information,
34
35 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/geophysics/, 2015 (accessed on 14 June 2014).
36 Oldenburg D W. The inversion and interpretation of gravity anomalies[J].
On

37 Geophysics, 1974, 39(4): 526-536. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1440444

38
39
Otter D W, Medina J R, Kalita J K. A survey of the usages of deep learning for
40 natural language processing[J]. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning
ly

41 systems, 2020, 32(2): 604-624. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2020.2979670

42
OUYANG M D, SUN Z M, ZHAI Z H. Predicting bathymetry in South China Sea
43
44 using the gravity-geologic method[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 2014, 57(9):
45 2756-2765. https://doi.org/10.6038/cjg20140903
46 OUYANG Mingda, SUN Zhongmiao, ZHAI Zhenhe, LIU Xiaogang. Bathymetry
47
48 Prediction Based on the Admittance Theory of Gravity Anomalies[J]. Acta Geodaetica
49 et Cartographica Sinica, 2015, 44(10): 1092-1099.
50 https://doi.org/10.11947/j.AGCS.2015.20140427
51
52
Parker, R. L.: The Rapid Calculation of Potential Anomalies, Geophys. J. Int., 31,
53 447-455, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1973.tb06513.x, 1972
54 Reddi, S.J.; Kale, S.; Kumar, S. On the Convergence of Adam and Beyond. In
55
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Representations,
56
57 Vancouver, BC, Canada, 30 April–3 May 2018.
58 Sandwell, D. T., Goff, J. A., Gevorgian, J., Harper, H., Kim, S.-S., Yu, Y., et al.
59 (2022). Improved bathymetric prediction using geological information: SYNBATH.
60

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen
 Acta Oceanologica Sinica Page 20 of 20

1
2
3
Earth and Space Science, 9, e2021EA002069. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EA002069
4
5 Scharroo R, Visser P. Precise orbit determination and gravity field improvement
6 for the ERS satellites[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 1998, 103(C4):
7 8113-8127. https://doi.org/10.1029/97JC03179
8
9 Schulz, M.-A.; Yeo, B.T.T.; Vogelstein, J.T.; Mourao-Miranada, J.; Kather, J.N.;
10 Kording, K.; Richards, B.; Bzdok, D. Different scaling of linear models and deep
11 learning in UKBiobank brain images versus machine-learning datasets. Nat. Commun.
12
13
2020, 11, 4238. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18037-z
14 Seoane, L.; Ramillien, G.; Beirens, B.; Darrozes, J.; Rouxel, D.; Schmitt, T.; Salaün,
15 C.; Frappart, F. Regional Seafloor Topography by Extended Kalman Filtering of
16
Marine Gravity Data without Ship-Track Information. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 169.
17
18 https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14010169
19 Shi B, Lu X, Yang F, et al. Shipborne over-and under-water integrated mobile
20 mapping system and its seamless integration of point clouds[J]. Marine Geodesy, 2017,
21
Fo

22 40(2-3): 104-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490419.2016.1272510

23 Simonyan, K.; Zisserman, A. Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale
24 Image Recognition. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning
rR

25
26
Representations, San Diego, CA, USA, 7–9 May 2015.
27 Smith, W. H. F., and Sandwell, D. T.: Bathymetric prediction from dense satellite
28 altimetry and sparse shipboard bathymetry, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 99, 21803-
ev

29
21824, https://doi.org/10.1029/94JB00988, 1994
30
31 Smith W H F, Sandwell D T. Global sea floor topography from satellite altimetry
iew

32 and ship depth soundings[J]. Science, 1997, 277(5334): 1956-1962.

33 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5334.1956
34
35 Watts A B, Sandwell D T, Smith W H F, et al. Global gravity, bathymetry, and the
36 distribution of submarine volcanism through space and time[J]. Journal of Geophysical
On

37 Research: Solid Earth, 2006, 111(B8). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JB004083

38
39
Yale M M, Sandwell D T, Herring A T. What are the limitations of satellite
40 altimetry?[J]. The leading edge, 1998, 17(1): 73-76. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1437832.
ly

41 Yuan Q, Shen H, Li T, et al. Deep learning in environmental remote sensing:

42
Achievements and challenges[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2020, 241: 111716.
43
44 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.111716
45 Zhu, C.; Guo, J.; Yuan, J.; Jin, X.; Gao, J.; Li, C. Refining Altimeter-Derived
46 Gravity Anomaly Model from Shipborne Gravity by Multi-Layer Perceptron Neural
47
48 Network: A Case in the South China Sea. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 607.
49 https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13040607
50 Zwally H J, Schutz B, Abdalati W, et al. ICESat's laser measurements of polar ice,
51
52
atmosphere, ocean, and land[J]. Journal of Geodynamics, 2002, 34(3-4): 405-445.
53 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-3707(02)00042-X
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen