MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1241639403 · doi:10.1117/12.2188252

Sparse reconstruction of compressed sensing multispectral data using a cross-spectral multilayered conditional random field model

2015· article· en· W1241639403 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Li, Mohammad Javad Shafiee, Farnoud Kazemzadeh, Alexander Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressed sensingMultispectral imageComputer scienceHyperspectral imagingConditional random fieldFull spectral imagingArtificial intelligenceSpectral imagingIterative reconstructionComputer visionSignal reconstructionPattern recognition (psychology)Remote sensingSignal processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The broadband spectrum contains more information than what the human eye can detect. Spectral information from different wavelengths can provide unique information about the intrinsic properties of an object. Recently compressed sensing imaging systems with low acquisition time have been introduced. To utilize compressed sensing strategies, strong reconstruction algorithms that can reconstruct a signal from sparse observations are required. This work proposes a cross-spectral multi-layered conditional random field (CS-MCRF) approach for sparse reconstruction of multi-spectral compressive sensing data in multi-spectral stereoscopic vision imaging systems. The CS-MCRF will use information between neighboring spectral bands to better utilize available information for reconstruction. This method was evaluated using simulated compressed sensing multi-spectral imaging data. Results show improvement over existing techniques in preserving spectral fidelity while effectively inferring missing information from sparsely available observations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207