MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166383946 · doi:10.1364/ao.45.003063

Target-adaptive polarimetric synthetic aperture radar target discrimination using maximum average correlation height filters

2006· article· en· W2166383946 on OpenAlexaff
Firooz A. Sadjadi, Abhijit Mahalanobis

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Polarization and Ellipsometry
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClutterOpticsPolarimetrySynthetic aperture radarRadarPolarization (electrochemistry)Radar horizonRemote sensingRadar imagingContinuous-wave radarPhysicsScatteringComputer scienceGeologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the development of a technique for adaptive selection of polarization ellipse tilt and ellipticity angles such that the target separation from clutter is maximized. From the radar scattering matrix [S] and its complex components, in phase and quadrature phase, the elements of the Mueller matrix are obtained. Then, by means of polarization synthesis, the radar cross section of the radar scatters are obtained at different transmitting and receiving polarization states. By designing a maximum average correlation height filter, we derive a target versus clutter distance measure as a function of four transmit and receive polarization state angles. The results of applying this method on real synthetic aperture radar imagery indicate a set of four transmit and receive angles that lead to maximum target versus clutter discrimination. These optimum angles are different for different targets. Hence, by adaptive control of the state of polarization of polarimetric radar, one can noticeably improve the discrimination of targets from clutter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.000
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicOptical Polarization and EllipsometryFrench-language works237,207