MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172401710 · doi:10.1002/cpe.6297

Ship‐iceberg discrimination from Sentinel‐1 synthetic aperture radar data using parallel convolutional neural network

2021· article· en· W3172401710 on OpenAlexaff
Song Lan, Dennis Peters, Weimin Huang, Desmond Power

Bibliographic record

VenueConcurrency and Computation Practice and Experience · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources EngineeringGovernment of Newfoundland and LabradorMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersJiangxi Provincial Department of Science and TechnologyEducation Department of Jiangxi ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceIcebergSynthetic aperture radarConstant false alarm ratePattern recognition (psychology)Support vector machineArtificial neural networkDeep learningComputer visionGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Ships and icebergs are similar in size and intensity in SAR images, so it is difficult to distinguish them in remote sensing images. Deep learning is a technique based on neural networks, which has played an important role in image information processing. In order to address the challenge of ship and iceberg classification, we present a convolutional neural network (CNN) based classification method for iceberg and ship discrimination from Sentinel‐1 SAR images with different polarizations and incidence angles. The method is based on the fixed constant false alarm rate (CFAR) detector and the CNN model has three input channels, then the model was trained using parallel algorithm. The CNN is trained using 1443 images and tested using 161 images. The CNN model is also compared with support vector machine (SVM) and k nearest neighbors (kNN) using the same dataset. Comparison shows the CNN‐based method performs the best, and it achieved a validation accuracy of 96%.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConcurrency and Computation Practice and ExperienceSame topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207