MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210827313 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2022.3149852

Mitigation of Rain Effect on Wave Height Measurement Using X-Band Radar Sensor

2022· article· en· W4210827313 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhiding Yang, Weimin Huang, Xinwei Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPrecipitation Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAlgorithmRadarSupport vector machineNotationArtificial intelligenceMathematicsNoise (video)RegressionRemote sensingComputer scienceStatisticsImage (mathematics)GeologyTelecommunicationsArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence of rain can negatively affect the performance of many sensors such as X-band radar. In this paper, an effective approach is proposed to mitigate the effect of rain on significant wave height (${H}_{s}$) estimation from X-band radar sensor data along with a machine-learning (ML)-based method. First of all, the haze removal algorithm is applied to rain-contaminated radar images as pre-processing. Then, three different features are extracted from the processed radar images. Different combinations of these three features are utilized to estimate${H}_{s}$under the rain condition by using support vector regression (SVR)-based and temporal convolutional network (TCN)-based regression methods. It is found that the root-mean-square-errors (RMSEs) of${H}_{s}$estimation results using two typical methods (signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)-based and ensemble empirical mode decomposition (EEMD)-based linear fitting methods) are decreased by 0.14 m and 0.48 m after introducing the haze removal algorithm, respectively. Also, a relatively high accuracy can be achieved using the SVR-based regression method with the combination of SNR and gray level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) features. Compared to the SNR-based and EEMD-based linear regression methods, the proposed SVR-based method further improves the estimation accuracy, with reductions of RMSE by 0.19 m and 0.82 m, respectively.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicPrecipitation Measurement and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207