MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318375775 · doi:10.4031/mtsj.46.2.4

Advanced Interferometric Techniques for High-Resolution Bathymetry

2012· article· en· W2318375775 on OpenAlexaff
Gerard Llort-Pujol, Christophe Sintès, Thierry Chonavel, A.T. Morrison, Sylvie Daniel

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Technology Society Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterferometryBathymetrySonarComputer scienceRemote sensingDecorrelationAlgorithmOpticsGeologyArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractCurrent high-resolution sidescan and multibeam sonars produce very large data sets. However, conventional interferometry-based bathymetry algorithms underestimate the potential information of such soundings, generally because they use small baselines to avoid phase ambiguity. Moreover, these algorithms limit the triangulation capabilities of multibeam echosounders (MBES) to the detection of one sample per beam, i.e., the zero-phase instant. In this paper, we argue that the correlation between signals plays a very important role in the exploration of a remotely observed scene. In the case of multibeam sonars, capabilities can be improved by using the interferometric signal as a continuous quantity. This allows consideration of many more useful soundings per beam and enriches understanding of the environment. To this end, continuous interferometry detection is compared here, from a statistical perspective, first with conventional interferometry-based algorithms and then with high-resolution methods such as the Multiple Signal Classification (MUSIC) algorithm. We demonstrate that a well-designed interferometry algorithm based on a coherence error model and an optimal array configuration permits a reduction in the number of beam formings (and therefore the computational cost) and an improvement in target detection (such as ship mooring cables or masts). A possible interferometry processing algorithm based on the complex correlation between received signals is tested on both sidescan sonars and MBESs and shows promising results for detection of small in-water targets.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Technology Society JournalSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207