MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969184429 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2011.2160646

A Bicriteria-Optimization-Approach-Based Dimensionality-Reduction Model for the Color Display of Hyperspectral Images

2011· article· en· W1969184429 on OpenAlexaff
Max Mignotte

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingComputer scienceDimensionality reductionArtificial intelligenceVisualizationCurse of dimensionalityPattern recognition (psychology)Mathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a new nonlinear dimensionality-reduction model based on a bicriteria global optimization approach for the color display of hyperspectral images. The proposed fusion model is derived from two well-known and contradictory criteria of good visualization, which are useful in any multidimensional imagery color display, namely, accuracy, with the preservation of spectral distance criterion, and contrast, guaranteeing that colors are well distinguished or concretely allowing the good separability of each observed existing material in the final visualized color image. An internal parameter allows our algorithm to express the contribution or the importance of these two criteria for a specific application. In this framework, which also can be viewed as a classical Bayesian optimization strategy involving a tradeoff between fidelity to the unreduced (raw) spectral data and the expected highly contrasted resulting mapping, we will show that a hybrid optimization strategy, combining a global and deterministic optimization procedure and a local stochastic search using the Metropolis criterion, can be exploited to efficiently minimize the complex nonlinear objective cost function related to our model. The experiments reported in this paper demonstrate that the proposed model, taking into account these two criteria of good visualization, makes easier and more reliable the interpretation and quick overview of such multidimensional hyperspectral images.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations37
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207