MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081660323 · doi:10.4031/mtsj.54.4.7

Texture Features and Unsupervised Learning-Incorporated Rain-Contaminated Region Identification From X-Band Marine Radar Images

2020· article· en· W3081660323 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xinwei Chen, Weimin Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Technology Society Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisArtificial intelligenceRadarPixelPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceRemote sensingFilter (signal processing)Feature vectorTexture (cosmology)Feature (linguistics)Identification (biology)Computer visionImage (mathematics)GeologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A novel method is proposed for identifying rain-contaminated regions in X-band marine radar images. Due to the difference of texture between rain-contaminated and rain-free echoes, a Gabor filter bank and discrete wavelet transform (DWT) are introduced to filter marine radar images and generate texture features. Feature vectors extracted from each pixel of the training samples are input into a clustering model, which is trained using unsupervised learning techniques such as k -means and a self-organizing map (SOM). After distinguishing between rain-free and rain-contaminated clusters, the proposed method is able to cluster pixels into rain-free and rain-contaminated types automatically. Images collected from a shipborne marine radar in a sea trial off the east coast of Canada under rain conditions are utilized to validate the proposed method. Identification results obtained from several clustering models with different combinations of cluster number, texture features, and clustering methods show that rain-contaminated pixels are effectively detected, with an overall identification accuracy of 89.1% for both k -means‐based ( k = 4) and 2 × 2-neuron SOM-based clustering models.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Technology Society JournalSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207