MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898837206 · doi:10.4043/29130-ms

Towards Automation of Satellite-Based Radar Imagery for Iceberg Surveillance - Machine Learning of Ship and Iceberg Discrimination

2018· article· en· W2898837206 on OpenAlexaff
Desmond Power, Carl Howell, Kelley Dodge, Francesco Scibilia, J.R. Sagli, Richard J. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueOTC Arctic Technology Conference · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcebergSynthetic aperture radarComputer scienceRemote sensingConstant false alarm rateClutterAutomationSatelliteCloud computingRadarReal-time computingSea iceMeteorologyArtificial intelligenceGeologyEngineeringGeographyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Drifting icebergs can threaten navigation and marine operations and are prevalent in a number of regions that have active oil and gas exploration and development. Satellite synthetic aperture radar (SAR) is naturally applicable to map and monitor icebergs and sea ice due its ability to capture images day or night, as well as through cloud, fog and various wind conditions. There are several notable examples of its use to support operations, including Grand Banks, Barents Sea, offshore Greenland and Kara Sea. New constellations of satellites and the increasing volume of satellite data becoming available present a new paradigm for ice surveillance, in terms of persistence, reliability and cost. To fully extract the value of the data from these constellations, automation and cloud-based processing must be implemented. This will allow more timely and efficient processing, lowering monitoring costs by at least an order of magnitude. The increase in data persistence and processing capability allows large regions to be monitored daily for ice incursions, thus increasing safety and efficiency during offshore operations in those regions. The process of automating SAR-based iceberg surveillance involves creating a process flow that is robust and requires limited human intervention. The process flow involves land-masking, target detection, target discrimination and product dissemination. Land masking involves the removal of high-clutter land from the imagery to eliminate false detection from these locations. Target detection usually involves an adaptive threshold to separate true targets from the background ocean clutter. A constant false alarm rate (CFAR) is a standard technique used in radar image processing for this purpose. Target discrimination involves an examination of the distinct features of a target to determine if they match the features of icebergs, vessels or other ‘false alarms’ (e.g., marine wildlife, clutter). The final stage is the production of an output surveillance product, which can be a standard iceberg chart (e.g., MANICE) or something that can be ingested into a GIS system (e.g., ESRI shapefile, Google KML). The target discrimination phase is one of the most important phases because it provides feedback to operations about the presence of targets of interest (icebergs and vessels). The authors have used computer vision techniques successfully to train target classifiers. Standard techniques usually result in classifier accuracies of between 85%-95%, depending on the resolution of the SAR (higher resolutions produce more accurate results) and the availability of multiple polarizations. To see if new machine learning techniques could be applied to increase classifier accuracy, a dataset of 5000 ship and iceberg targets were extracted from Sentinel-1 multi-channel data (HH,HV). The images were collected in several regions (Greenland, Grand Banks, and Strait of Gibraltar). Validation either came by way of supporting information from the offshore operations, or was inferred by location. An online machine learning competition was hosted by Kaggle, a company that conducts online competitions on behalf of their clients. The detection data were made available by Kaggle to the broad internet community. Kaggle has a loyal following of data scientists who regularly participate in Kaggle competitions. The competition was hosted over a three-month period; over 3300 teams participated in the competition. The competition produced an improved classifier over standard computer vision techniques; the top three competitors had 4-5 stage classifiers that increased classification accuracy by approximately 5%.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOTC Arctic Technology ConferenceSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207