MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211822504 · doi:10.3390/rs13224604

Remote Sensing Imagery Segmentation: A Hybrid Approach

2021· article· en· W3211822504 on OpenAlexaff
S. Pare, Himanshu Mittal, Mohammad Sajid, Jagdish Chand Bansal, Amit Saxena, Tony Jan, Witold Pedrycz, Mukesh Prasad

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuckoo searchThresholdingComputer scienceSegmentationArtificial intelligenceEntropy (arrow of time)Image segmentationBalanced histogram thresholdingPattern recognition (psychology)Otsu's methodComputer visionAlgorithmImage (mathematics)Image processingParticle swarm optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In remote sensing imagery, segmentation techniques fail to encounter multiple regions of interest due to challenges such as dense features, low illumination, uncertainties, and noise. Consequently, exploiting vast and redundant information makes segmentation a difficult task. Existing multilevel thresholding techniques achieve low segmentation accuracy with high temporal difficulty due to the absence of spatial information. To mitigate this issue, this paper presents a new Rényi’s entropy and modified cuckoo search-based robust automatic multi-thresholding algorithm for remote sensing image analysis. In the proposed method, the modified cuckoo search algorithm is combined with Rényi’s entropy thresholding criteria to determine optimal thresholds. In the modified cuckoo search algorithm, the Lévy flight step size was modified to improve the convergence rate. An experimental analysis was conducted to validate the proposed method, both qualitatively and quantitatively against existing metaheuristic-based thresholding methods. To do this, the performance of the proposed method was intensively examined on high-dimensional remote sensing imageries. Moreover, numerical parameter analysis is presented to compare the segmented results against the gray-level co-occurrence matrix, Otsu energy curve, minimum cross entropy, and Rényi’s entropy-based thresholding. Experiments demonstrated that the proposed approach is effective and successful in attaining accurate segmentation with low time complexity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207