MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295854875 · doi:10.1080/01431161.2022.2115863

Unsupervised change detection in SAR images based on generalized likelihood ratio test and a two-stage morphological filter

2022· article· en· W4295854875 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abbas Kakoolvand, Maryam Imani, Hassan Ghassemian

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Remote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeckle noiseSynthetic aperture radarSpeckle patternComputer scienceLikelihood-ratio testChange detectionArtificial intelligenceMatched filterPixelPattern recognition (psychology)Noise (video)Filter (signal processing)MathematicsComputer visionStatisticsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generalized likelihood ratio test (GLRT) is an efficient method to generate difference image (DI) for change detection (CD) using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images. GLRT is usually applied with a fixed-size moving window to the neighbourhood regions in multitemporal SAR images. The fixed window may be however not optimal for all the pixels under test. To solve disadvantages of the GLRT method, an adaptive circular window is proposed in this work. While the adaptive square window and the best fixed square window achieve an average Kappa coefficient of 83.55% and 82.12%, respectively, the adaptive circular window improves the average Kappa coefficient by 83.65% in six datasets. As another difficulty, speckle noise reduces quality of DI in SAR change detection. Three steps are considered to minimize effects of the speckle noise: (1) a two-stage morphological filter is suggested to reduce the speckle noise; (2) to generate DI, the adaptive circular window for generalized likelihood ratio test (ACWGLRT) is proposed that reduces influence of the speckle noise while preserves the edge details of multitemporal images; and (3) spatial fuzzy c-means (SFCM) is used to reduce effects of the residual speckle-noise during DI classification. The experimental results show superior performance of the proposed change detection method with respect to several competitors. The proposed method has the best Kappa coefficient and percentage correct classification (PCC) in four datasets of Ottawa, San Francisco, Farmland C, and Inland water.

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)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Remote SensingSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207