SEGMENTATION OF POLARIMETRIC SAR IMAGES USIG WAVELET TRANSFORMATION AND TEXTURE FEATURES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Polarimetric Synthetic Aperture Radar (PolSAR) sensors can collect useful observations from earth’s surfaces and phenomena for various remote sensing applications, such as land cover mapping, change and target detection. These data can be acquired without the limitations of weather conditions, sun illumination and dust particles. As result, SAR images, and in particular Polarimetric SAR (PolSAR) are powerful tools for various environmental applications. Unlike the optical images, SAR images suffer from the unavoidable speckle, which causes the segmentation of this data difficult. In this paper, we use the wavelet transformation for segmentation of PolSAR images. Our proposed method is based on the multi-resolution analysis of texture features is based on wavelet transformation. Here, we use the information of gray level value and the information of texture. First, we produce coherency or covariance matrices and then generate span image from them. In the next step of proposed method is texture feature extraction from sub-bands is generated from discrete wavelet transform (DWT). Finally, PolSAR image are segmented using clustering methods as fuzzy c-means (FCM) and k-means clustering. We have applied the proposed methodology to full polarimetric SAR images acquired by the Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle Synthetic Aperture Radar (UAVSAR) L-band system, during July, in 2012 over an agricultural area in Winnipeg, Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".