MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196006465 · doi:10.1080/01431161.2021.1939910

Deep support vector machine for PolSAR image classification

2021· article· en· W3196006465 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Onuwa Okwuashi, Christopher E. Ndehedehe, Dupe Nihinlola Olayinka, Aniekan E. Eyoh, Hosanna Attai

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Remote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceSupport vector machinePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceArtificial neural networkConfusion matrixSynthetic aperture radarParametric statisticsContextual image classificationMathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main problem posed by Polarimetric Synthetic Aperture Radar (PolSAR) image classification in remote sensing is the ability to develop classifiers that can substantially discern the different classes inherent in natural and man-made targets. Emphasis has shifted from the use of conventional classifiers to modern non-parametric classifiers such as the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and Support Vector Machine (SVM), and most recently the hybrid Deep Neural Network (DNN) which is a fusion of Deep Learning (DL) and ANN. This research therefore presents the novel application of Deep Support Vector Machine (DSVM), which is a fusion of DL and SVM to PolSAR image classification. Two PolSAR images of Flevoland region in the Netherlands and Winnipeg in Canada are used as test beds for the experiment. The Lee filter is used to filter the images to suppress the speckle noise in the images. The Pauli decomposition is applied to decompose the images into SHH+SVV, SHH−SVV, SHV polarimetric channels. Then, the Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) texture feature for SHH+SVV, SHH−SVV, SHV are extracted based on correlation, contrast, energy, and homogeneity statistics, using GLCM directions 0°, 45°, 90°, and 135° with an offset distance of 60. To enhance the efficiency of the model 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, and 256 quantization levels are explored. The DSVM classifier is implemented with four kernel functions: Exponential Radial Basis Function (ERBF), Gaussian Radial Basis Function (GRBF), neural, and polynomial. The first set of results is a comparison of the DSVM and SVM. The result of Flevoland image for ERBF, GRBF, neural, and polynomial kernels are 99.17 (73.39), 99.32 (74.62), 98.64 (71.28), and 99.34 (77.21), respectively; for the Winnipeg image for ERBF, GRBF, neural, and polynomial kernels are 98.65 (72.68), 98.67 (73.54), 98.27 (70.15), and 99.46 (75.03), respectively. The second set of results is a comparison of DSVM, SVM, DNN, Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM), K Nearest Neighbour (KNN), and K Means (KM) classifiers; the results for Flevoland image for DSVM, SVM, DNN, GMM, KNN, and KM are 99.12, 74.13, 96.29, 75.06, 75.85, and 21.43, respectively, while the results for Winnipeg image for DSVM, SVM, DNN, GMM, KNN, and KM are 98.76, 72.85, 95.64, 73.20, 73.91, and 25.60, respectively. Since the Kappa coefficient is presumed to be a more accurate measure for accuracy estimation, it is used to evaluate the performances of all the models. The computed Kappa coefficients for of DSVM, SVM, DNN, GMM, KNN, and KM for Flevoland are 92.45, 70.71, 88.76, 68.59, 68.62, and 18.89, respectively; while the computed Kappa coefficients for DSVM, SVM, DNN, GMM, KNN, and KM for Winnepeg are 92.45, 70.71, 88.76, 68.59, 68.62, and 18.89, respectively. Based on the metrics used to evaluate the performances of the experiments; the results show that the DSVM outperformed the other classifiers. The high accuracy obtained with the DSVM shows it is a state-of-the-art algorithm for PolSAR image classification and a significant progress in the latest of DL applications.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Remote SensingSame topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207