MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061809320 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2013.2248739

Despeckling of Synthetic Aperture Radar Images Using Monte Carlo Texture Likelihood Sampling

2013· article· en· W2061809320 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Glaister, Alexander Wong, David A. Clausi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarArtificial intelligenceSpeckle noiseComputer scienceSpeckle patternMonte Carlo methodNoise (video)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionSampling (signal processing)Similarity (geometry)Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Radar imagingTexture (cosmology)Image textureAlgorithmRadarImage (mathematics)MathematicsImage processingStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Speckle noise is found in synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images and can affect visualization and analysis. A novel stochastic texture-based algorithm is proposed to suppress speckle noise while preserving the underlying structural and texture detail. Based on a sorted local texture model and a Fisher-Tippett logarithmic-space speckle distribution model, a Monte Carlo texture likelihood sampling strategy is proposed to estimate the true signal. The algorithm is compared to six other classic and state-of-the-art despeckling techniques. The comparison is performed both on synthetic noisy images added and on actual SAR images. Using peak signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, and structural similarity index as image quality metrics, the proposed algorithm shows strong despeckling performance when compared to existing despeckling algorithms.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207