Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAgapiou, Athosen
dc.contributor.authorSarris, Apostolosen
dc.creatorAgapiou, Athosen
dc.creatorSarris, Apostolosen
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-27T09:14:16Z
dc.date.available2021-01-27T09:14:16Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.urihttp://gnosis.library.ucy.ac.cy/handle/7/63646
dc.description.abstractThe integration of different remote sensing datasets acquired from optical and radar sensors can improve the overall performance and detection rate for mapping sub-surface archaeological remains. However, data fusion remains a challenge for archaeological prospection studies, since remotely sensed sensors have different instrument principles, operating in different wavelengths. Recent studies have demonstrated that some fusion modelling can be achieved under ideal measurement conditions (e.g., simultaneously measurements in no hazy days) using advance regression models, like those of the nonlinear Bayesian Neural Networks. This paper aims to go a step further and investigate the impact of noise in regression models, between datasets obtained from ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and portable field spectroradiometers. Initially, the GPR measurements provided three depth slices of 20 cm thickness, starting from 0.00 m up to 0.60 m below the ground surface while ground spectral signatures acquired from the spectroradiometer were processed to calculate 13 multispectral and 53 hyperspectral indices. Then, various levels of Gaussian random noise ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 of a normal distribution, with mean 0 and variance 1, were added at both GPR and spectral signatures datasets. Afterward, Bayesian Neural Network regression fitting was applied between the radar (GPR) versus the optical (spectral signatures) datasets. Different regression model strategies were implemented and presented in the paper. The overall results show that fusion with a noise level of up to 0.2 of the normal distribution does not dramatically drop the regression model between the radar and optical datasets (compared to the non-noisy data). Finally, anomalies appearing as strong reflectors in the GPR measurements, continue to provide an obvious contrast even with noisy regression modelling.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.sourceRemote Sensingen
dc.source.urihttps://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/16/1895
dc.titleWorking with Gaussian Random Noise for Multi-Sensor Archaeological Prospection: Fusion of Ground Penetrating Radar Depth Slices and Ground Spectral Signatures from 0.00 m to 0.60 m below Ground Surfaceen
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/rs11161895
dc.description.volume11
dc.description.issue16
dc.author.facultyΦιλοσοφική Σχολή / Faculty of Letters
dc.author.departmentΤμήμα Iστoρίας και Αρχαιoλoγίας / Department of History and Archaeology
dc.type.uhtypeArticleen
dc.contributor.orcidAgapiou, Athos [0000-0001-9106-6766]
dc.contributor.orcidSarris, Apostolos [0000-0001-6071-4767]
dc.gnosis.orcid0000-0001-9106-6766
dc.gnosis.orcid0000-0001-6071-4767


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record