Comparative analysis of feature extraction (2D FFT and wavelet) and classification (L p metric distances, MLP NN, and HNeT) algorithms for SAR imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of several combinations of feature extraction and target classification algorithms is analyzed for Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery using the standard Moving and Stationary Target Acquisition and Recognition (MSTAR) evaluation method. For feature extraction, 2D Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is used to extract Fourier coefficients (frequency information) while 2D wavelet decomposition is used to extract wavelet coefficients (time-frequency information), from which subsets of characteristic in-class "invariant" coefficients are developed. Confusion matrices and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves are used to evaluate and compare combinations of these characteristic coefficients with several classification methods, including Lp metric distances, a Multi Layer Perceptron (MLP) Neural Network (NN) and AND Corporation's Holographic Neural Technology (HNeT) classifier. The evaluation method examines the trade-off between correct detection rate and false alarm rate for each combination of feature-classifier systems. It also measures correct classification, misclassification and rejection rates for a 90% detection rate. Our analysis demonstrates the importance of feature and classifier selection in accurately classifying new target images.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".