MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799750502 · doi:10.1080/01431161.2018.1468108

Global DEMs to tackle RPC biases and the overfitting phenomenon in high-resolution satellite imagery

2018· article· en· W2799750502 on OpenAlex
Amin Alizadeh Naeini, Sayyed Mohammad Javad Mirzadeh, Saeid Homayouni

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Remote Sensing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSatellite Image Processing and Photogrammetry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersChinese Academy of Sciences
KeywordsOverfittingComputer scienceSubpixel renderingSatelliteAlgorithmPixelData miningReal-time computingArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overfitting phenomenon and rational polynomial coefficients (RPCs) biases are two crucial issues that degrade the accuracy of geospatial products derived from high-resolution satellite images. The overfitting phenomenon is caused by both a large number of RPCs and strong correlations among them. The RPC biases arise from uncertainties in the global positioning system receivers and inertial measurement units. In this article, an innovative framework based on the genetic algorithm (GA) and the least squares (LS) algorithm, called GALS, is proposed to overcome these problems simultaneously. In this method, the GA is applied to select the optimum RPCs, while the LS algorithm is used to estimate the values of the optimally selected RPCs. The GALS method requires various sets of well-distributed ground control points (GCPs). To tackle the problem of GCP collection, we generated a large number of digital elevation model (DEM)-derived GCPs (DEMGCPs), using a global DEM (GDEM) and vendor-provided RPCs, refined by only one GCP. To evaluate the performance of this framework, four IRS-P5 data sets were used. The GALS is compared to two competing methods, L1-norm-regularized LS and ridge estimation by considering two scenarios using 50 GCPs and the DEMGCPs. The results demonstrate the superiority of GALS in both scenarios. Furthermore, GALS using DEMGCPs led to far more accurate and stable results when compared to GALS using GCPs. Compared to the vendor-provided RPCs, the results of the GALS using DEMGCPs also indicate a major improvement, single-pixel or subpixel accuracy with around 15 RPCs, and only 1 GCP, in both accuracy and reliability of georeferencing for all IRS-P5 data sets.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.252 · 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