MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312204377 · doi:10.3390/rs15010075

Dual-Branch Fusion of Convolutional Neural Network and Graph Convolutional Network for PolSAR Image Classification

2022· article· en· W4312204377 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Radman, Masoud Mahdianpari, Brian Brisco, Bahram Salehi, Fariba Mohammadimanesh

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources EngineeringMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkSynthetic aperture radarGraphContextual image classificationRemote sensingImage (mathematics)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polarimetric synthetic aperture radar (PolSAR) images contain useful information, which can lead to extensive land cover interpretation and a variety of output products. In contrast to optical imagery, there are several challenges in extracting beneficial features from PolSAR data. Deep learning (DL) methods can provide solutions to address PolSAR feature extraction challenges. The convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and graph convolutional networks (GCNs) can drive PolSAR image characteristics by deploying kernel abilities in considering neighborhood (local) information and graphs in considering long-range similarities. A novel dual-branch fusion of CNN and mini-GCN is proposed in this study for PolSAR image classification. To fully utilize the PolSAR image capacity, different spatial-based and polarimetric-based features are incorporated into CNN and mini-GCN branches of the proposed model. The performance of the proposed method is verified by comparing the classification results to multiple state-of-the-art approaches on the airborne synthetic aperture radar (AIRSAR) dataset of Flevoland and San Francisco. The proposed approach showed 1.3% and 2.7% improvements in overall accuracy compared to conventional methods with these AIRSAR datasets. Meanwhile, it enhanced its one-branch version by 0.73% and 1.82%. Analyses over Flevoland data further indicated the effectiveness of the dual-branch model using varied training sampling ratios, leading to a promising overall accuracy of 99.9% with a 10% sampling ratio.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

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 head0.227
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207