Review of Antwerpen et al 2026, TC Discussion

The manuscript presents a Machine Learning approach to calculate the spatial and temporal evolution of albedo in the bare ice zone on the SW part of the Greenland Ice Sheet. PIXAL is trained on MODIS albedo and compared to the method for calculating albedo in MAR, after calibrating the MAR method to the same MODIS data. While I found the interpretation of the SHAP a little difficult to follow and I was missing some discussion on the incident angle/slope dependence on MODIS data, the manuscript is clear and well presented and I can recommend publishing after some minor revisions. I hope the authors will take this work further in the future and implement PIXAL or something similar in MAR.

Here are my line by line comments:

48: maybe add to the sentence something like: […] resulting in a net mass loss and exposure of the bare ice surface every year.

67: I think Cryoconite is a collective term for dust and algae, and not a type of particle in itself?

88: Consider adding a thus:  […] which can lead to underestimates of surface melting and thus sea level rise […]

225-227: Maybe I missed it somehow, but for the albedo prediction in the XGBoost you use all the MAR output listed in line 140-146, except Albedo and cloud cover. But what about: surface melt and shortwave upward radiation. These must also be dependent on the MAR albedo. But I am unsure how this affects the results, could you maybe add a sentence about this?

Figure 2 c): Why do you think there is this spatial difference in the performance?  I wonder if the difference you see is due to slope? There must be an issue with MODIS seeing albedo differently depending on slope. I think it would be easy to compare that here – although maybe out of the scope for this study.

338: I am not sure I understand this: “In other words, the SHAP value shows how much the ice albedo prediction increases or decreases due to each individual feature relative to the mean ice albedo”.  When you say ice albedo prediction increases do you then mean that it is the performance of the albedo prediction that gets better?

340-342: I don’t understand why you determine the surface height and slope to be the primary and then the climatic to be the secondary. To me it looks like temperature, shortwave incoming and wind is a better predictor than slope and surface height. Temperature in particular looks unambiguous. But maybe it relates to the fact that I have have not really understood what you are comparing in the SHAP? I think a few sentences should be added to clarify this.

367-374: This is all correct, but maybe add some discussion here on what does that mean for results from PIXAL if used for future runs?

380-386: As mentioned above, I think that MODIS albedo is likely affected by the slope, giving a somehow skewed picture of actual albedo e.g. Wang and Zender (2010) in “MODIS snow albedo bias at high solar zenith angles relative to theory and to in situ observations in Greenland” (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2009.10.014). I am missing bit of discussion on this.

426-230: I was looking forward to hearing your thoughts about the albedo bias as mentioned above. To me this seems like an obvious next step and I am looking forward to see your results! In this study it would be interesting to see how often MAR albedo based on PIXAL would have to be recalibrated.

440-450: Again I am missing some discussion on MAR and incident angle / slope

Please find my comments in the attached document.