MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190415999 · doi:10.18287/2412-6179-co-814

Evaluation of the change in synthetic aperture radar imaging using transfer learning and residual network

2021· article· en· W3190415999 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Imad Hamdi, Yassine Tounsi, Mohammed Benjelloun, Abdelkrim Nassim

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Optics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSpeckle noiseGround truthResidualRemote sensingConvolutional neural networkRadar imagingChange detectionInverse synthetic aperture radarSpeckle patternMetric (unit)RadarComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)GeologyAlgorithmTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Change detection from synthetic aperture radar images becomes a key technique to detect change area related to some phenomenon as flood and deformation of the earth surface. This paper proposes a transfer learning and Residual Network with 18 layers (ResNet-18) architecture-based method for change detection from two synthetic aperture radar images. Before the application of the proposed technique, batch denoising using convolutional neural network is applied to the two input synthetic aperture radar image for speckle noise reduction. To validate the performance of the proposed method, three known synthetic aperture radar datasets (Ottawa; Mexican and for Taiwan Shimen datasets) are exploited in this paper. The use of these datasets is important because the ground truth is known, and this can be considered as the use of numerical simulation. The detected change image obtained by the proposed method is compared using two image metrics. The first metric is image quality index that measures the similarity ratio between the obtained image and the image of the ground truth, the second metrics is edge preservation index, it measures the performance of the method to preserve edges. Finally, the method is applied to determine the changed area using two Sentinel 1 B synthetic aperture radar images of Eddahbi dam situated in Morocco.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer OpticsSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207