Synthesis of Remote Sensing Label Fields Using a Tree-Structured Hierarchical Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The systematic evaluation of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data analysis tools, such as segmentation and classification algorithms for geographic information systems, is difficult given the unavailability of ground-truth data in most cases. Therefore, testing is typically limited to small sets of pseudoground-truth data collected manually by trained experts, or primitive synthetic sets composed of simple geometries. To address this issue, we investigate the potential of employing an alternative approach, which involves the synthesis of SAR data and corresponding label fields from real SAR data for use as a reliable evaluation testbed. Given the scale-dependent nonstationary nature of SAR data, a new modeling approach that combines a resolution-oriented hierarchical method with a region-oriented binary tree structure is introduced to synthesize such complex data in a realistic manner. Experimental results using operational RADARSAT SAR sea-ice data and SIR-C/X-SAR land-mass data show that the proposed hierarchical approach can better model complex nonstationary scale structures than local MRF approaches and existing nonparametric methods, thus making it well suited for synthesizing SAR data and the corresponding label fields for potential use in the systematic evaluation of SAR data analysis tools.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".