Derivation and comparison of SAR and frequency-wavenumber migration within a common inverse scalar wave problem formulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two common Fourier imaging algorithms used in ground penetrating radar (GPR), synthetic aperture radar (SAR), and frequency-wavenumber (F-K) migration, are reviewed and compared from a theoretical perspective. The two algorithms, while arising from seemingly different physical models: a point-scatterer model for SAR and the exploding source model for F-K migration, result in similar imaging equations. Both algorithms are derived from an integral equation formulation of the inverse scalar wave problem, which allows a clear understanding of the approximations being made in each algorithm and allows a direct comparison. This derivation brings out the similarities of the two techniques which are hidden by the traditional formulations based on physical scattering models. The comparison shows that the approximations required to derive each technique from the integral equation formulation of the inverse problem are nearly identical, and hence the two imaging algorithms and physical models are making similar assumptions about the solution to the inverse problem, thus clarifying why the imaging equations are so similar. Sample images of landmine-like targets buried in sand are obtained from experimental GPR data using both 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".