Semi-supervised classification of hyperspectral image using random forest algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a hyperspectral image classification method based on the semi-supervised random forest (SSRF) algorithm. This method uses Deterministic Annealing (DA) and the random forest classifier (RFC). The first step consists of performing the random forest algorithm by using labeled data. Then, image is classified and the probability of each unlabeled data will be computed. Based on the probability and the temperature parameter, label of unlabeled data will be determined. Finally, the classification is carried out based on the labeled data and unlabeled data which were converted to labeled data in the procedure of algorithm. The proposed method and also a conventional RFC method have been applied to an APEX (Airborne Prism Experiment) hyperspectral image. The results show more consistency in homogeneous area. In addition, its overall accuracy of classification is 82.63%, while the kappa coefficient is 0.78, and both are higher than the accuracies of spectral based classification using the conventional RFC, i.e. 73.58% and 0.68 respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".