MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905439256 · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2018.2884898

Synthetic Aperture Radar Image Generation With Deep Generative Models

2018· article· en· W2905439256 on OpenAlexaff
Ke Wang, Gong Zhang, Yang Leng, Henry Leung

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced SAR Imaging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarAutoencoderComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceRadar imagingDeep learningGenerative grammarImage (mathematics)Generative modelPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionInverse synthetic aperture radarRadarTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A variety of machine learning approaches have been applied to synthetic aperture radar (SAR) automatic target recognition. The performances of these approaches rely strongly on the quality and quantity of training data. In real-world applications, however, it is challenging to obtain sufficient data suitable for these approaches. To alleviate this problem, a novel deep generative model for SAR image generation is proposed, which is an extension of Wasserstein autoencoder. The network structure and reconstruction loss function of the model have been improved according to the characteristics of SAR images. The experimental results demonstrate that our model is superior to other classical generative models in SAR image generation. The generated images can be directly used as training samples, thereby extending the training data set and improving the recognition accuracy.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations55
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing LettersSame topicAdvanced SAR Imaging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207