Evaluating Image Normalization via GANs for Environmental Mapping: A Case Study of Lichen Mapping Using High-Resolution Satellite Imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Illumination variations in non-atmospherically corrected high-resolution satellite (HRS) images acquired at different dates/times/locations pose a major challenge for large-area environmental mapping and monitoring. This problem is exacerbated in cases where a classification model is trained only on one image (and often limited training data) but applied to other scenes without collecting additional samples from these new images. In this research, by focusing on caribou lichen mapping, we evaluated the potential of using conditional Generative Adversarial Networks (cGANs) for the normalization of WorldView-2 (WV2) images of one area to a source WV2 image of another area on which a lichen detector model was trained. In this regard, we considered an extreme case where the classifier was not fine-tuned on the normalized images. We tested two main scenarios to normalize four target WV2 images to a source 50 cm pansharpened WV2 image: (1) normalizing based only on the WV2 panchromatic band, and (2) normalizing based on the WV2 panchromatic band and Sentinel-2 surface reflectance (SR) imagery. Our experiments showed that normalizing even based only on the WV2 panchromatic band led to a significant lichen-detection accuracy improvement compared to the use of original pansharpened target images. However, we found that conditioning the cGAN on both the WV2 panchromatic band and auxiliary information (in this case, Sentinel-2 SR imagery) further improved normalization and the subsequent classification results due to adding a more invariant source of information. Our experiments showed that, using only the panchromatic band, F1-score values ranged from 54% to 88%, while using the fused panchromatic and SR, F1-score values ranged from 75% to 91%.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".