Comparison of broadband and hyperspectral thermal infrared imaging of buried threat objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research by many groups has shown that broad-band thermal infrared (TIR) imagers can detect buried explosive threat devices, such as unexploded ordnance (UXO), landmines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Broad-band detection measures the apparent temperature - an average over the wave band of the product of the true soil surface temperature and the emissivity. Broad-band detection suffers from inconsistent performance (low signal, high clutter rates), due in part to diurnal variations, environmental and meteorological conditions, and soil surface effects. It has been suggested that hyperspectral TIR imaging might have improved performance since it can, in principle, allow extraction of the wavelength-dependent emissivity and the true soil surface temperature. This would allow the surface disturbance effects to be separated from the soil column (bulk) effects. A significant, and as yet unanswered, question is whether hyperspectral TIR images provide better detection capability (higher probability of detection and/or lower false alarm rate) than do broad-band thermal images. TIR hyperspectral image data of threat objects, buried and surface-laid in bare soil, were obtained in arid, desert-like conditions over full diurnal cycles for several days. Regions of interest containing threat objects and backgrounds were extracted throughout the time period. Simulated broad-band images were derived from the hyperspectral images. The diurnal variation of the images was studied. Hyperspectral was found to provide some advantage over broad-band imaging in detection of buried threat objects for the limited data set studied.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".