Maximum likelihood estimation for SAR interferometry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) interferometry (InSAR) uses phase differences between overlapping SAR images to estimate terrain height and terrain height changes. In addition, the coherence magnitude between the images is often used as a measure of the quality of the data and the processing. By modeling the SAR image data as independent circular Gaussian random variates, the authors develop the maximum likelihood (ML) estimates for interferogram phase, coherence magnitude, and the variance of the underlying circular Gaussian distribution. They show that the ML estimate of interferogram phase is equivalent to the standard technique of computing the phase of averaged complex returns. The ML estimate of the coherence magnitude depends on the estimated interferogram phase. In comparison, the sample coherence magnitude estimate based on amplitudes alone is badly biased. They also derive the Cramer-Rao bound for each ML estimate. The ML estimate of interferogram phase is close to this bound for moderate to high coherence values. Similarly, the coherence magnitude is close to the bound for values of coherence greater than approximately 1/2. For coherence magnitudes less than 1/2, the ML estimate of coherence magnitude is biased for data samples sizes up to 16 samples.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">></ETX>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it