MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of linear dimensionality reduction methods on the performance of anomaly detection algorithms in hyperspectral images

2015· article· en· W1760980278 on OpenAlexaff
Mohsen Zare-Baghbidi, Saeid Homayouni, Kamal Jamshidi, Ahmad Reza Naghsh‐Nilchi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of artificial intelligence and data mining · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingAnomaly detectionComputer scienceDimensionality reductionKernel (algebra)AlgorithmPrincipal component analysisArtificial intelligenceBenchmark (surveying)Pattern recognition (psychology)Imaging spectrometerFast Fourier transformMathematicsSpectrometer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anomaly Detection (AD) has recently become an important application of hyperspectral images analysis. The goal of these algorithms is to find the objects in the image scene which are anomalous in comparison to their surrounding background. One way to improve the performance and runtime of these algorithms is to use Dimensionality Reduction (DR) techniques. This paper evaluates the effect of three popular linear dimensionality reduction methods on the performance of three benchmark anomaly detection algorithms. The Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) as DR methods, act as pre-processing step for AD algorithms. The assessed AD algorithms are Reed-Xiaoli (RX), Kernel-based versions of the RX (Kernel-RX) and Dual Window-Based Eigen Separation Transform (DWEST). The AD methods have been applied to two hyperspectral datasets acquired by both the Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) and Hyperspectral Mapper (HyMap) sensors. The evaluation of experiments has been done using Receiver Operation Characteristic (ROC) curve, visual investigation and runtime of the algorithms. Experimental results show that the DR methods can significantly improve the detection performance of the RX method. The detection performance of neither the Kernel-RX method nor the DWEST method changes when using the proposed methods. Moreover, these DR methods increase the runtime of the RX and DWEST significantly and make them suitable to be implemented in real time applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of artificial intelligence and data miningSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207