The variability of crater identification among expert and community crater analysts
By Stuart J. Robbins, I. Antonenko, M. Kirchoff, Clark R. Chapman, Caleb I. Fassett, R. Herrick, K. Singer, M. Zanetti, C. Lehan, Di Huang and 1 more. 2014
197 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Abstract The identification of impact craters on planetary surfaces provides important information about their geological history. Most studies have relied on individual analysts who map and identify craters and interpret crater statistics. However, little work has been done to determine how the counts vary as a function of technique, terrain, or between researchers. Furthermore, several novel internet-based projects ask volunteers with little to no training to identify craters, and it was unclear how their results compare against the typical professional researcher. To better understand the variation among experts and to compare with volunteers, eight professional researchers have identified impact features in two separate regions of the Moon. Small craters (diameters ranging from 10 m to 500 m) were measured on a lunar mare region and larger craters (100s m to a few km in diameter) were measured on both lunar highlands and maria. Volunteer data were collected for the small craters on the mare. Our comparison shows that the level of agreement among experts depends on crater diameter, number of craters per diameter bin, and terrain type, with differences of up to ∼±45%. We also found artifacts near the minimum crater diameter that was studied. These results indicate that caution must be used in most cases when interpreting small variations in crater size–frequency distributions and for craters ≲10 pixels across. Because of the natural variability found, projects that emphasize many people identifying craters on the same area and using a consensus result are likely to yield the most consistent and robust information.
Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fb752d65762b2b6fef64209fbe6ae7b2c58de012
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Astronomy and Astrophysics
Citations in the corpus
- A New Global Database of Lunar Impact Craters >1–2 km: 1. Crater Locations and Sizes, Comparisons With Published Databases, and Global Analysis (2019, methodology): “In the first two subsections, craters were matched between databases via a clustering algorithm (Ester et al., 1996; implementation for craters by Robbins et al., 2014) where the matching criteria between craters in each database required (1) distance ≤0.375·avg(D1 + D2), and (2) diameter ratio…”
- Crater degradation on the lunar maria: Topographic diffusion and the rate of erosion on the Moon (2014, methodology): “In addition, a technique of looking at crater density [e.g., Ostrach and Robinson, 2014] without any a priori assumptions about the division of geologic units gives a different way of analyzing crater density information than has been analyzed in most past work.”