MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800212302 · doi:10.1117/12.2302606

A change detection method for remote sensing image based on LBP and SURF feature

2018· article· en· W2800212302 on OpenAlexaff
Lei Hu, Hao Yang, Jin Li, Yun Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueNinth International Conference on Graphic and Image Processing (ICGIP 2017) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicRemote Sensing and Land Use
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocal binary patternsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionChange detectionComputer scienceRemote sensingImage textureBlock (permutation group theory)Feature (linguistics)Feature detection (computer vision)Image (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Image resolutionFeature extractionSimilarity (geometry)HistogramImage processingGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Finding the change in multi-temporal remote sensing image is important in many the image application. Because of the infection of climate and illumination, the texture of the ground object is more stable relative to the gray in high-resolution remote sensing image. And the texture features of Local Binary Patterns (LBP) and Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF) are outstanding in extracting speed and illumination invariance. A method of change detection for matched remote sensing image pair is present, which compares the similarity by LBP and SURF to detect the change and unchanged of the block after blocking the image. And region growing is adopted to process the block edge zone. The experiment results show that the method can endure some illumination change and slight texture change of the ground object.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNinth International Conference on Graphic and Image Processing (ICGIP 2017)Same topicRemote Sensing and Land UseFrench-language works237,207