4.7 Article

A No-Reference Edge-Preservation Assessment Index for SAR Image Filters under a Bayesian Framework Based on the Ratio Gradient

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs14040856

关键词

assessment index; speckle filtering; synthetic aperture radar; ratio gradient

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41701390]
  2. CMA-Henan Key Laboratory of Agrometeorological Support and Applied Technique [AMF202204]
  3. Hefei Municipal Natural Science Foundation [2021041]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Denoising is a fundamental preprocessing step in SAR image processing. Evaluating the edge-preservation performance of filters has been done using various indices, but most of them do not fully exploit the statistical traits of SAR images. This paper reviews some indices and proposes a new referenceless index.
Denoising is an essential preprocessing step for most applications using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images at different processing levels. Besides suppressing the noise, a good filter should also effectively preserve the image edge information. To quantitatively assess the edge-preservation performance of SAR filters, a number of indices have been investigated in the literature; however, most of them do not fully employ the statistical traits of the SAR image. In this paper, we review some of the typical edge-preservation assessment indices. A new referenceless index is then proposed. The ratio gradient is utilized to characterize the difference between two non-overlapping neighborhoods on opposite sides of each pixel in both the speckled and despeckled images. Based on these gradients and the statistical traits of the speckle, the proposed indicator is derived under a Bayesian framework. A series of experiments conducted with both simulated and real SAR datasets reveal that the proposed index shows good performances, in both robustness and consistency. For reproducibility, the source codes of the index and the testing datasets are provided.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据