IGARSS 2018 - 2018 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium 2018
DOI: 10.1109/igarss.2018.8519411
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automated Tracking of 2D and 3D Ice Radar Imagery Using Viterbi and TRW-S

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Another critical area of innovation in radioglaciological data processing and analysis is automatic methods for radargram image interpretation. These include algorithms for layer tracking, bed and surface mapping and basal feature categorization (Sime and others, 2011;Crandall and others, 2012;Ferro and Bruzzone, 2012; Ilisei and Bruzzone, 2015;Panton and Karlsson, 2015;Carrer and Bruzzone, 2016;Rahnemoonfar and others, 2017;Berger and others, 2018;Donini and others, 2019). Success of these approaches is a prerequisite to be able to cope efficiently with the data volume of future surveys and effectively exploit their information content.…”
Section: Processingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another critical area of innovation in radioglaciological data processing and analysis is automatic methods for radargram image interpretation. These include algorithms for layer tracking, bed and surface mapping and basal feature categorization (Sime and others, 2011;Crandall and others, 2012;Ferro and Bruzzone, 2012; Ilisei and Bruzzone, 2015;Panton and Karlsson, 2015;Carrer and Bruzzone, 2016;Rahnemoonfar and others, 2017;Berger and others, 2018;Donini and others, 2019). Success of these approaches is a prerequisite to be able to cope efficiently with the data volume of future surveys and effectively exploit their information content.…”
Section: Processingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lee et al [19] proposed a more accurate and efficient method by using Gibbs sampling from a joint distribution over all candidate layers, while Carrer and Bruzzone [4] further re-duced the computational cost with a divide-and-conquer strategy. Xu et al [28] first extended the work to the 3D domain and estimate 3D ice surfaces using a Markov Random Field (MRF), and Berger et al [1] followed up with better cost functions that incorporate domain-specific priors into the cost computation and provide more specific characterizations of the ice sheets as additional evidence. Kamangir et al [14] detected ice boundaries using wavelet transform with convolutional neural networks.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…where N +1 is the true number of layers (N is the number of gaps between layers), and l indicates the number of thresholds (we use 10, t l = [1,4,7,10,13,16,19,22,25,27], which assume 300 × 256 input images).…”
Section: Evaluation Metricsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Newer work in this field utilizes image processing, computer vision, and deep learning techniques to automatically or semi-automatically determine ice surface and bottom boundaries from echograms [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Gifford et al [1] employs both the edge-based and active contour methodologies to automate the task of locating polar ice and bedrock layers from airborne radar data acquired over Greenland and Antarctica.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Xu et al [6] revisits this issue and uses a tree-reweighted message passing (TRW) technique, which first generates a seed surface subject with a set of constraints, and then incorporates additional sources of evidence to refine it via discrete energy minimization. Berger et al [7] further improves upon the method of Xu et al [6] by incorporating additional domain-specific knowledge into the cost functions and modeling algorithms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%