MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1923947552 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2015.2451311

Robust CFAR Detector Based on Truncated Statistics in Multiple-Target Situations

2015· article· en· W1923947552 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tao Ding, Stian Normann Anfinsen, Camilla Brekke

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadar Systems and Signal Processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsConstant false alarm rateClutterDetectorComputer scienceOutlierFalse alarmStatisticSynthetic aperture radarArtificial intelligenceRadarStatisticsPattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new and robust constant false alarm rate (CFAR) detector based on truncated statistics (TSs) is proposed for ship detection in single-look intensity and multilook intensity synthetic aperture radar data. The approach is aimed at high-target-density situations such as busy shipping lines and crowded harbors, where the background statistics are estimated from potentially contaminated sea clutter samples. The CFAR detector uses truncation to exclude possible statistically interfering outliers and TSs to model the remaining background samples. The derived truncated statistic CFAR (TS-CFAR) algorithm does not require prior knowledge of the interfering targets. The TS-CFAR detector provides accurate background clutter modeling, a stable false alarm regulation property, and improved detection performance in high-target-density situations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations164
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicRadar Systems and Signal ProcessingFrench-language works237,207