Dynamic display algorithm of sonar data based on grayscale distribution model and computational intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing image processing and target recognition algorithms have limitations in complex underwater environments and dynamic changes, making it difficult to ensure real-time and precision. Multiple noise sources interfere with sonar signals, which affects both data precision and clarity. This article studies the dynamic display algorithm of sonar data based on grayscale distribution model and computational intelligence. It proposes to construct a grayscale distribution model for sonar images, analyze the grayscale histogram, determine the threshold selection of the maximum entropy threshold segmentation method, and finally complete the target segmentation. The segmented images can be used to train the convolutional neural network object recognition model constructed in this article. To verify the effectiveness of the proposed method, a test set was used to evaluate the trained target recognition model. The precision of the model recognition was 87.95%, the recall was 87.97%, and the F1 value was 0.8794, which is significantly higher than the traditional model (Such as Otsu and SVM is below 80%). The recognition speed reached 37 m, which is a certain improvement compared to the traditional model.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".