The Jeffries–Matusita distance for the case of complex Wishart distribution as a separability criterion for fully polarimetric SAR data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In multidimensional observations, many classification algorithms (supervised or unsupervised) require the selection of optimum bands in which the classes are most distinct. The Jeffries–Matusita (JM) distance is widely used as a separability criterion for optimal band selection and evaluation of classification results. Its original form is based on the assumption of normal distribution of the data. However, in the case of the covariance/coherency matrix of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) polarimetry, the data follow the complex Wishart distribution. In this article, we calculate the JM separability criterion for the case of the complex Wishart distribution. The updated formulation is used for: (1) the estimation of the separability between classes in fully polarimetric SAR data and to evaluate two standard polarimetric SAR classification algorithms, the Wishart and the expectation maximization algorithms, and (2) the classification of fully polarimetric SAR images based on the derived JM separability for t...
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".