Ship Detection in SAR Image Based on the Alpha-stable Distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes an improved Constant False Alarm Rate (CFAR) ship detection algorithm in spaceborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) image based on Alphastable distribution model. Typically, the CFAR algorithm uses the Gaussian distribution model to describe statistical characteristics of a SAR image background clutter. However, the Gaussian distribution is only valid for multilook SAR images when several radar looks are averaged. As sea clutter in SAR images shows spiky or heavy-tailed characteristics, the Gaussian distribution often fails to describe background sea clutter. In this study, we replace the Gaussian distribution with the Alpha-stable distribution, which is widely used in impulsive or spiky signal processing, to describe the background sea clutter in SAR images. In our proposed algorithm, an initial step for detecting possible ship targets is employed. Then, similar to the typical two-parameter CFAR algorithm, a local process is applied to the pixel identified as possible target. A RADARSAT-1 image is used to validate this Alpha-stable distribution based algorithm. Meanwhile, known ship location data during the time of RADARSAT-1 SAR image acquisition is used to validate ship detection results. Validation results show improvements of the new CFAR algorithm based on the Alpha-stable distribution over the CFAR algorithm based on the Gaussian distribution.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".