Hyperspectral Image Analysis Using Genetic Programming
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
Genetic programming is used to evolve mineral identification functions for hyperspectral images. The input image set comprises 168 images from different wavelengths ranging from 428 nm (visible blue) to 2507 nm (invisible shortwave in the infrared), taken over Cuprite, Nevada, with the AVIRIS hyperspectral sensor. A composite mineral image indicating the overall reflectance percentage of three minerals (alunite, kaolnite, buddingtonite) is used as a reference or "solution" image. The training set is manually selected from this composite image, and results are cross-validated with the remaining image data not used for training. The task of the GP system is to evolve mineral identifiers, where each identifier is trained to identify one of the three mineral specimens. A number of different GP experiments were undertaken, which parameterized features such as thresholded mineral reflectance intensity and target GP language. The results are promising, especially for minerals with higher reflectance thresholds, which indicate more intense concentrations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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