MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385975674 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2023.3305309

Level Sets Based on AoTF Fitting Energy for Riverbank Line Extraction From SAR Images

2023· article· en· W4385975674 on OpenAlexaff
Bin Han, Anup Basu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutomated Road and Building Extraction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNanjing University of Posts and TelecommunicationsNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarInitializationOutlierComputer scienceGradient descentEnergy (signal processing)Feature extractionArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmLine (geometry)Function (biology)Pattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsStatisticsArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article proposed a level set method (LSM) based on a novel data fitting energy for extracting riverbank lines from synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images. First, we devise a function by computing the absolute-value of the tangent function, which we call AoTF, and employ it to establish the data fitting energy. Second, the refined area fitting centers (AFCs) are developed in terms of two types of AFCs, namely average and median AFCs, which obtain better accuracy and stability. Third, a difference of Gaussian (DoG) based edge-indicator is used to supplant the Dirac-function in the model’s gradient descent flow (GDF), which encourages the evolving level sets to locate at the target edges. In addition, some regularizing constraint terms are incorporated into the objective function. Riverbank line extraction experiments on actual SAR images demonstrate that the proposed LSM outperforms some state-of-the-art methods in extraction performance and is robust to the level set initialization.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicAutomated Road and Building ExtractionFrench-language works237,207