MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337944562 · doi:10.1109/jstars.2016.2527242

Extraction of Urban Areas From Polarimetric SAR Imagery

2016· article· en· W2337944562 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Boussad Azmedroub, Mounira Ouarzeddine, Boularbah Souissi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsWishart distributionRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarPolarimetryComputer scienceLand coverRadar imagingCovariance matrixRadarContextual image classificationClassifier (UML)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceGeographyScatteringLand useImage (mathematics)AlgorithmMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polarimetric synthetic aperture radar (PolSAR) images are extensively used for land-use/land-cover (LULC) classification. One of the important issues in radar remote sensing is urban area detection, where difficulties are found because of its heterogeneity. In this paper, we are interested in urban area detection using PolSAR images which allow us detecting the scattering mechanisms by the use of polarimetric target decompositions methods. We propose in this paper two methods: in the first one, we use the powers of Yamaguchi four-component decomposition and in the second method, we use the coefficients of PolSAR covariance matrix calculated in the circular polarization basis. We added in each method the complex Wishart maximum likelihood (ML) classifier to refine the classification results. To validate both methods, we used two PolSAR images acquired in C-band by RADARSAT-2 satellite over the El Hamiz city in Algeria and San Francisco Bay. The two proposed algorithms give accurate results in both test sites, with superiority of the circular condition method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations38
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote SensingSame topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207