the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A benchmark deep learning dataset for the classification of supraglacial lake drainage mechanism across the central-west Greenland Ice Sheet
Abstract. Supraglacial lakes on the Greenland Ice Sheet drain through physically distinct pathways: hydrofracture, moulins, lateral stream routing, and crevasse-fields. Each drainage mechanism carries unique implications for ice sheet dynamics. Existing automated classifications reduce each lake’s drainage behavior to a time-series of scalar values representing the observed water surface-area and classify each lake based on drainage rate (e.g., rapid vs. slow). This scalar reduction conflates physically different drainage mechanisms, which can only be determined through consideration of full spatio-temporal tracking. Here we introduce a human-benchmarked, machine learning-ready benchmark dataset that pairs full Sentinel-2 multispectral satellite imagery time series with human-expert-labels assigned for N = 1679 supraglacial lakes in the central-west basin of the Greenland Ice Sheet during the 2018 (n = 679) and 2019 (n = 1000) melt seasons. The dataset is formatted as per-lake CF-1.8 NetCDF files each containing: six Sentinel-2 reflectance bands at 10 meter spatial resolution and daily cadence over the 153 day melt season (1 May to 30 September); a per-pixel binary cloud mask; co-registered lake water masks (both static and dynamic); and the human-assigned drainage classification labels. We accompany the dataset with a baseline deep learning classifier, demonstrating the utility of the dataset both in deep learning workflows and in extending lake drainage classification from rate-based to mechanism-based. The dataset is released through the Stanford Digital Repository under a CC BY 4.0 license, and the accompanying open-source sat-tile-stack preprocessing software under an MIT license.
- Preprint
(22813 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-406', Devon Dunmire, 04 Aug 2026
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Joshua Rines, 23 Sep 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2026-406', Saurabh Kaushik, 01 Sep 2026
The dataset generated in this study is of broad interest to the cryosphere and remote sensing communities. The overall manuscript is well written, with impressive visualizations. I advise final publication of this article in ESSD, with some minor suggestions for a better fit with the journal:
1) Retitle Sect. 6 to something like "Technical Validation," which is ESSD's preferred structure.
2) Trim the comparative benchmarking against Dunmire et al. to a short paragraph, and move the detailed F1/confusion-matrix analysis (Figs. 8–10, B1, B2) to an appendix or supplementary material, keeping only what demonstrates that the dataset is usable and correctly structured.
3) Explicitly distinguish between the human-expert labels (the core contribution of this work) and the lake boundaries inherited from the existing Dunmire et al. (2021) inventory, for readers' clarity.
4) Trim the Introduction. The dataset contribution is not introduced until line 89, after roughly 75 lines of physical background on hydrofracture, moulins, and lateral/crevasse drainage (lines 15 to 81), much of which is restated later in the Sect. 2.4.1 taxonomy. Suggest condensing this background into a single paragraph and moving mechanistic detail to Sect. 2.4.1, so the dataset contribution and literature gap arrive earlier, as readers expect in an ESSD data descriptor paper.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-406-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Joshua Rines, 23 Sep 2026
-
RC3: 'Comment on essd-2026-406', Anonymous Referee #3, 01 Sep 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2026-406/essd-2026-406-RC3-supplement.pdf
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Joshua Rines, 23 Sep 2026
-
AC4: 'Comment on essd-2026-406', Joshua Rines, 23 Sep 2026
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We thank you for your consideration of our work for the journal ESSD. We appreciate the comments and suggestions of all the reviewers, and have assimilated the suggestions into the revised manuscript which we now re-submit. Detailed responses to each of the reviewers’ comments are provided in the individual responses, per reviewer. An overarching theme across the reviewers is that the original manuscript needed a tighter focus on the dataset, as opposed to too much emphasis on the other supporting pieces of work such as the software to accumulate the dataset and the baseline deep learning classifier. We have restructured the revised manuscript accordingly, while retaining enough discussion of these auxiliary components to demonstrate that the dataset was properly (and reproducibly) constructed and that it is capable of being directly used in a deep learning model.
Though the baseline classifier is not the focus of this manuscript, we want to be clear that the baseline classifier has changed between the original submitted manuscript and this revision. The results and figures in the current revised manuscript are up to date with this revised baseline classifier. We made these changes in large part because the classifier as reported in the original manuscript never fit its own training data, which prompted a deeper look into the baseline classifier, without tuning hyperparameters or a full cross validation optimization analysis. The architecture and parameter count are largely unchanged (~140k parameters), but several training details have been revised. In particular, GroupNorm after each convolution (previously none), a ConvLSTM forget-gate bias of 1.0 (previously 0.0), a 10-epoch warm-up into cosine learning-rate decay (previously constant learning rate), input standardization with training-split band statistics, feature resolution into the ConvLSTM (previously upsampled to 64x64 after FrontCNN). We elected to use the single-season 2019 data in a 600/200/200 train/val/test split as a minimal demonstration of the utility and proper structure of the dataset for a deep learning model, while minimizing the potential data-leakage of one lake appearing in multiple years, as suggested by the reviewers. We removed the comparison against Dunmire et al., 2025 for reasons as given in our responses to the reviewers.
The dataset repository, at the same Stanford Digital Repository, has been updated to reflect these changes. The only changes are metadata regarding the splits of the training/validation/testing data for the 2019 season. The dataset, otherwise, remains unchanged.
Sincerely,
Joshua Rines, on behalf of all coauthors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-406-AC4
Data sets
Central West Greenland Supraglacial Lake Drainage Classification Dataset (2018-2019) Joshua H. Rines, Ching-Yao Lai, Ellianna Abrahams, Michael G. Shahin, Niall B. Coffey, Eojin Lee, and Laura Stevens https://doi.org/10.25740/sf350xp4038
Model code and software
sat-tile-stack Joshua Rines and Ellianna Abrahams https://github.com/jharlanr/sat-tile-stack/
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 595 | 315 | 141 | 1,051 | 114 | 92 |
- HTML: 595
- PDF: 315
- XML: 141
- Total: 1,051
- BibTeX: 114
- EndNote: 92
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please see attached PDF