Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 22, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Accurate ground-based cloud classification is important for atmospheric monitoring, solar-energy forecasting, aviation weather assessment, and climate observation systems. However, reliable sky-image annotation is time-consuming, especially when cloud types are visually similar or mixed. We study the label efficiency of deep learning for ground-based cloud classification using the Ground-based Cloud Dataset (GCD). Rather than proposing a new architecture, we benchmark three practical strategies under limited annotation budgets: supervised transfer learning, uncertainty-based active learning, and high-confidence pseudo-labeling. An ImageNet-pretrained ResNet50 is used as a common frozen backbone, with experiments repeated over five random seeds for label budgets from $1\%$ to $100\%$ of the training labels. Supervised transfer learning is already highly label-efficient: test accuracy increases from $0.635 \pm 0.018$ with $1\%$ labels to $0.730 \pm 0.002$ with $40\%$ labels, approaching the full-label result of $0.735 \pm 0.003$. Active learning and pseudo-labeling are competitive with supervised sampling and provide small improvements for some metrics and budgets, but neither gives a large or consistent aggregate gain. Diagnostic analyses show that accepted pseudo-labels are reliable, with accuracy from $0.946$ to $0.977$, but biased toward easier high-confidence sky-type groups. In contrast, uncertainty sampling preferentially queries visually challenging groups, including Mixed and the confusable Stratocumulus and Cumulonimbus groups, but these targeted acquisitions yield only modest gains. Overall, transfer learning substantially reduces annotation requirements for GCD, while simple active and semi-supervised strategies provide limited additional benefit over a strong supervised baseline.