MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Change Detection Analysis using Information Theoretic Measures on SAR Images

2023· article· en· W4390970718 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Debanshu Ratha, Vineet Kumar, Avik Bhattacharya, Alejandro C. Frery

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomnessChange detectionHellinger distanceEntropy (arrow of time)ThresholdingStatisticsCluster analysisStatistical hypothesis testingKurtosisSynthetic aperture radarComputer scienceMathematicsContext (archaeology)Measure (data warehouse)Kullback–Leibler divergenceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Data miningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss the use of two statistics for change detection in the context of Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery. We show their application to a bi-temporal pair of HH and VV channel intensity images from RADARSAT-2 of an agricultural scene in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. The images were acquired on 7th and 31st July 2012. One of the statistics is based on a stochastic distance viz., Hellinger distance, while the other is based on the Shannon entropy which provides a measure of randomness. We have assumed the Gamma model for the HH and VV channel intensity data with mean and number of looks as the two free parameters. Test statistics are often used to design hypothesis tests after theoretically deriving their asymptotic distributions. Such hypothesis tests, to have practical utility, require a judicious choice of sample size, and a level of significance for thresholding respectively. Instead of relying on the validity of the asymptotic distribution of test statistics (i.e. an implicit assumption for using p-values and levels of significance), in this work we use the test statistics as direct quantifiers of change. We apply a simple k-means clustering with k = 2 to these quantifiers in order to segregate change and no-change regions. With these, we show that the both information theoretic measures provide substantive evidence for change detection. The corresponding change maps are studied together to understand the complementary nature of the selected statistics. It is inferred that these two statistics may be used in tandem for better change detection analysis in SAR imagery.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207