Unsupervised Polarimetric SAR Image Segmentation and Classification Using Region Growing With Edge Penalty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A region-based unsupervised segmentation and classification algorithm for polarimetric synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery that incorporates region growing and a Markov random field edge strength model is designed and implemented. This algorithm is an extension of the successful Iterative Region Growing with Semantics (IRGS) segmentation and classification algorithm, which was designed for amplitude only SAR imagery, to polarimetric data. Polarimetric IRGS (PolarIRGS) extends IRGS by incorporating a polarimetric feature model based on the Wishart distribution and modifying key steps such as initialization, edge strength computation, and the region growing criterion. Like IRGS, PolarIRGS oversegments an image into regions and employs iterative region growing to reduce the size of the solution search space. The incorporation of an edge penalty in the spatial context model improves segmentation performance by preserving segment boundaries that traditional spatial models will smooth over. Evaluation of PolarIRGS with Flevoland fully polarimetric data shows that it improves upon two other recently published techniques in terms of classification accuracy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".