<title>An ad-hoc approach for quality assessment of hyperspectral datacubes in target detection</title>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses assessment of different processing techniques for hyperspectral images target detection. An ad-hoc quality assessment approach is adopted to compare different noise reduction techniques of hyperspectral images for target detection applications. Two different noise reduction techniques are applied to a datacube collected over a well-studied area with human made targets. The quality of these noise reduced datacubes in preserving the identity of the targets of interest is compared with that of the original datacube. This is achieved by applying different measures on the datacubes. First, the Virtual Dimensionality is used and the results for both of the noise reduction methods are compared with those of the original datacube for several false-alarm probabilities. Then Maximum Noise Fraction is applied to the datacubes and its capability in finding a transform in which the information of the datacube is represented in a smaller number of bands is assessed. Finally using set measures and knowing the location of the targets, different classes are defined and the intraclass and interclass distances for each datacube is measured.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it