MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972380563 · doi:10.1117/12.2062135

Reconstruction of compressive multispectral sensing data using a multilayered conditional random field approach

2014· article· en· W1972380563 on OpenAlexaff
Farnoud Kazemzadeh, Mohammad Javad Shafiee, Alexander Wong, David A. Clausi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressed sensingMultispectral imageComputer scienceNyquist rateIterative reconstructionData acquisitionSignal reconstructionConditional random fieldReconstruction algorithmAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceComputer visionSampling (signal processing)Signal processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of compressive sensing is continually growing in all facets of imaging science. Com- pressive sensing allows for the capture and reconstruction of an entire signal from a sparse (under- sampled), yet sufficient, set of measurements that is representative of the target being observed. This compressive sensing strategy reduces the duration of the data capture, the size of the acquired data, and the cost of the imaging hardware as well as complexity while preserving the necessary underlying information. Compressive sensing systems require the accompaniment of advanced re- construction algorithms to reconstruct complete signals from the sparse measurements made. Here, a new reconstruction algorithm is introduced specifically for the reconstruction of compressive multispectral (MS) sensing data that allows for high-quality reconstruction from acquisitions at sub-Nyquist rates. We propose a multilayered conditional random field (MCRF) model, which extends upon the CRF model by incorporating two joint layers of certainty and estimated states. The proposed algorithm treats the reconstruction of each spectral channel as a MCRF given the sparse MS measurements. Since the observations are incomplete, the MCRF incorporates an extra layer determining the certainty of the measurements. The proposed MCRF approach was evaluated using simulated compressive MS data acquisitions, and is shown to enable fast acquisition of MS sensing data with reduced imaging hardware cost and complexity.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations9
Published2014
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