Effects of target motion on polarimetric SAR images
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractSynthetic aperture radar (SAR) processors are typically designed to image static scenes. Images of moving targets can therefore be seriously degraded with smearing and apparent shifts in the azimuth position. These effects are illustrated and evaluated using airborne SAR images of land targets. This study examines the potential of detecting motion and estimating velocity from polarimetric SAR (PolSAR) images. PolSAR systems transmit alternating vertically and horizontally polarized pulses. This, together with a reciprocity assumption, suggests the application of clutter cancellation methods. The feasibility of several methods of motion detection and velocity estimation from PolSAR images is evaluated.Les processeurs RSO (radar à synthèse d'ouverture) sont généralement conçus pour imager des scènes statiques. Les images de cibles mouvantes peuvent ainsi être dégradées considérablement par des estompages et des décalages apparents dans la position en azimut. Ces effets sont illustrés et évalués à l'aide d'images RSO aéroporté de cibles terrestres. Cette étude examine le potentiel de détection du mouvement et d'estimation de la vitesse des images polarimétriques RSO (PolSAR). Les systèmes PolSAR transmettent des impulsions polarisées alternativement verticales et horizontales. Ceci, en supposant également le principe de la réciprocité, suggère l'application de méthodes d'annulation du fouillis d'échos. La faisabilité de plusieurs méthodes de détection du mouvement et d'évaluation de la vitesse à partir d'images PolSAR sont évaluées.[Traduit par la Rédaction]
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it