An Unsupervised Saliency-Guided Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Accurate Burn Mapping from Sentinel-1 SAR Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SAR data provide sufficient information for burned area detection in any weather condition, making it superior to optical data. In this study, we assess the potential of Sentinel-1 SAR images for precise forest-burned area mapping using deep convolutional neural networks (DCNN). Accurate mapping with DCNN techniques requires high quantity and quality training data. However, labeled ground truth might not be available in many cases or requires professional expertise to generate them via visual interpretation of aerial photography or field visits. To overcome this problem, we proposed an unsupervised method that derives DCNN training data from fuzzy c-means (FCM) clusters with the highest and lowest probability of being burned. Furthermore, a saliency-guided (SG) approach was deployed to reduce false detections and SAR image speckles. This method defines salient regions with a high probability of being burned. These regions are not affected by noise and can improve the model performance. The developed approach based on the SG-FCM-DCNN model was investigated to map the burned area of Rossomanno-Grottascura-Bellia, Italy. This method significantly improved the burn detection ability of non-saliency-guided models. Moreover, the proposed model achieved superior accuracy of 87.67% (i.e., more than 2% improvement) compared to other saliency-guided techniques, including SVM and DNN.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".