MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057478279 · doi:10.1109/cec.2014.6900261

Automatic Target Recognition using multiple-aspect sonar images

2014· article· en· W2057478279 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoguang Wang, Xuan Liu, Nathalie Japkowicz, Stan Matwin, Bao Nguyen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSonarArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceAutomatic target recognitionObject (grammar)Pattern recognition (psychology)Cognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionComputer visionSide-scan sonarObject detectionSynthetic aperture sonarSynthetic aperture radar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic Target Recognition (ATR) methods have been successfully applied to detect possible objects or regions of interest in sonar imagery. It is anticipated that the additional information obtained from additional views of an object should improve the classification performance over single-aspect classification. In this paper the detection of mine-like objects (MLO) on the seabed from multiple side-scan sonar views is considered. We transform the multiple-aspect classification problem into a multiple-instance learning problem and present a framework based upon the concepts of multiple-instance classifiers. Moreover, we present another framework based upon the Dempster-Shafer (DS) concept of fusion from single-view classifiers. Our experimental results indicate that both the presented frameworks can be successfully used in mine-like object classification.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207