MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Synthetic Aperture Radar-Based Ship Classification Using CNN and Traditional Handcrafted Features

2023· article· en· W4386920284 on OpenAlexaff
Ebrahim A. Nehary, Ankita Dey, Sreeraman Rajan, Bhashyam Balaji, Anthony Damini, Rajkumar Chanchlani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced SAR Imaging Techniques
Canadian institutionsGeneral Dynamics (Canada)Defence Research and Development CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarComputer scienceRadar imagingRadarRemote sensingArtificial intelligenceInverse synthetic aperture radarSide looking airborne radarBistatic radarGeologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ship classification for maritime surveillance is done using satellite-borne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images that consist of only a small group of bright pixels with noisy background and no proper gradient. Abstract (AB) features obtained using deep learning techniques such as a convolutional neural networks (CNN) alone are insufficient to provide an accurate ship classification. The abstract features (AB) extracted from CNN and common meaningful handcrafted (HC) features such as histogram of oriented gradients (HOG), local binary features (LBF), KAZE features (KF), binary robust invariant scalable keypoints features (BF), and scale-invariant feature transform (SIFT), are combined for ship classification using SAR images. HC features of the two polarizations of SAR images are dimensionally reduced and concatinated. AB and HC features are derived individually from each polarization of the SAR image and the classifier outputs are combined through soft and weighted voting (late fusion). Consolidated AB features are obtained through early fusion of the two polarization images or through mid fusion and then combined with HC features for classification. Experimental results on OpenSARShip dataset demonstrates the effectiveness of fusing HC features with abstract features as the combined feature set outperforms individual (both HC and AB) feature sets. Additionally, it has been observed that both early fusion and late fusion (using weighted voting) yield superior results compared to mid-fusion. The highest accuracy is achieved while combining AB features from early fusion and LBF features, while almost similar accuracy is obtained with weighted voting in late fusion using the same features.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced SAR Imaging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207