Bibliographic record
Abstract
The characteristics of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) image texture may be related to the properties of underlying elemental scene scatterers through established models based on the properties of a backscattering coefficient (in this paper, we use and unnormalized coefficient <i xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">s</i> ) of these scatterers. In this paper, we generate raw SAR data by simulating the statistical characteristics of elemental scene scatterers such as the order of the gamma distribution, the form and length of their spatial correlation, and their spatial density. This simulation is carried out using a SAR signal simulation system called cSAR. We describe a particular set of methods to simulate image texture used in cSAR, and provide a detailed analysis of simulated <i xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">s</i> and of the speckle and texture characteristics of simulated images. We found that the distribution of <i xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">s</i> was strongly affected by the order, density, and correlation length of the underlying scatterers. We found that the simulated SAR images were consistently <i xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">K</i> -distributed as expected. The estimated image order was a strong function of the scattering properties and that the estimated image order is a relatively weak descriptor of image texture when used on its own. The correspondence between the observed image autocorrelation function (ACF) and the theoretical models of Oliver is excellent, and we could estimate the scatterer correlation length by fitting the Oliver model to the observed ACF. We combined the estimated image order and correlation length and found potential for using these two image texture descriptors in classification and segmentation 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 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".