MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016747440 · doi:10.1117/12.766621

Image analysis of hyperspectral and multispectral data using projection pursuit

2007· article· en· W2016747440 on OpenAlexaff
Nilofar Azizi, Julian Meng

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingMultispectral imageComputer scienceAnomaly detectionArtificial intelligenceProjection (relational algebra)Pattern recognition (psychology)Projection pursuitData setDimensionality reductionDetectorFeature extractionComputer visionOutlierAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given recent advancements of modern hyperspectral (HS) sensors, the potential for information extraction has increased drastically given the continual improvements in spatial and spectral resolution. As a result, more sophisticated feature extraction and target detection (TD) algorithms are needed to improve the performance of the image analyst, whether computer-based or human. In this paper, a novel TD algorithm based on Projection Pursuit (PP) is proposed and implemented. PP is a well-known technique for dimensionality reduction in multi-band data sets without loss of any critical information. This technique highlights different features of interest in an image, thus improving and simplifying subsequent anomaly detection. The new target detection technique is based on a hybrid of PP and Reed_Xiaoli (RX) anomaly detector. In this study, the combining of PP with the RX detector (PPRX) adds some extra value to the standard RX detection technique and leads the development of a TD method that can be applied on hyperspectral/multispectral (MS) data sets. This novel technique, after being trained by using the Projection Index (PI) and a priori information of target of interest, utilizes RX detector to evaluate each potential projection. The main drawback of previously introduced PP methods such as those based on Information Divergence and Kurtosis/Skewness is that these techniques are sensitive to statistical outliers and cannot be used to highlight a specific target of interest. This study uses three data sets: (1) 4-band IKONOS multispectral data (2) 210-band HYDICE, and (3) 200-band simulated hyperspectral data set.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207