MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995262086 · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2015.2413299

QMCTLS: Quasi Monte Carlo Texture Likelihood Sampling for Despeckling of Complex Polarimetric SAR Images

2015· article· en· W1995262086 on OpenAlexafffund
Fan Li, Linlin Xu, Alexander Wong, David A. Clausi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Space AgencyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSynthetic aperture radarPolarimetryPattern recognition (psychology)Similarity (geometry)Sampling (signal processing)Noise (video)Monte Carlo methodProbabilistic logicFilter (signal processing)Benchmark (surveying)Computer visionAlgorithmMathematicsStatisticsImage (mathematics)Scattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despeckling of complex polarimetric synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images is more difficult than denoising of general images due to the low signal-to-noise ratio and the complex signals. A novel stochastic polarimetric SAR despeckling technique based on quasi Monte Carlo sampling (QMCS) and region-based probabilistic similarity likelihood has been developed. The despeckling of complex polarimetric SAR images is formulated as a Bayesian least squares optimization problem, where the posterior distribution is estimated by QMCS in a nonparametric manner. The QMCS approach allows the incorporation of the statistical description of local texture pattern similarity. Experiments on two benchmark quad-pol SAR images demonstrate that the proposed QMC texture likelihood sampling (QMCTLS) filter outperforms referenced methods in terms of both noise removal and detail preservation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing LettersSame topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207