MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2355974492 · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/34/1/012021

A new method for speckle reduction in Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images using optimal window size

2016· article· en· W2355974492 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sahel Mahdavi, Bahram Salehi, Cecilia Moloney, Weimin Huang, Brian Brisco

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources EngineeringMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeckle patternSynthetic aperture radarWindow (computing)PixelComputer scienceChannel (broadcasting)Artificial intelligenceFilter (signal processing)Feature (linguistics)Computer visionSpeckle noiseImage qualityInverse synthetic aperture radarRadar imagingImage (mathematics)RadarTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Speckle degrades the radiometric quality of a Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) image and makes its visual interpretation difficult. The approaches proposed previously for speckle filtering of SAR images exploit a window of fixed size for this purpose. But a fixed size window is not sufficient as the size of objects may vary throughout the image. In this paper, a method is introduced by which each pixel in the image is filtered using a window size which is optimal for that pixel. Real and imaginary parts of a single-channel SAR image are used for the selection of the best window size for each pixel, and then intensity image is filtered by applying that window size. The Average and Minimum Mean Square Error (MMSE) filters are modified using the Adaptive Window Size method. This approach is implemented on the HH-channel of a RADARSAT-2 image acquired over the Avalon Peninsula near St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada. This filter can supress speckle effectively while retaining the details reasonably.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceSame topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207