Feature-Level Fusion of Polarized SAR and Optical Images Based on Random Forest and Conditional Random Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In terms of land cover classification, optical images have been proven to have good classification performance. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) has the characteristics of working all-time and all-weather. It has more significant advantages over optical images for the recognition of some scenes, such as water bodies. One of the current challenges is how to fuse the benefits of both to obtain more powerful classification capabilities. This study proposes a classification model based on random forest with the conditional random fields (CRF) for feature-level fusion classification using features extracted from polarized SAR and optical images. In this paper, feature importance is introduced as a weight in the pairwise potential function of the CRF to improve the correction rate of misclassified points. The results show that the dataset combining the two provides significant improvements in feature identification when compared to the dataset using optical or polarized SAR image features alone. Among the four classification models used, the random forest-importance_ conditional random fields (RF-Im_CRF) model developed in this paper obtained the best overall accuracy (OA) and Kappa coefficient, validating the effectiveness of the method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".