MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084989433 · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2014.2324631

FSPE: Visualization of Hyperspectral Imagery Using Faithful Stochastic Proximity Embedding

2014· article· en· W2084989433 on OpenAlexaff
Safa A. Najim, Ik Soo Lim, Péter Wittek, Mark W. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity College of the North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingComputer scienceVisualizationEmbeddingPixelArtificial intelligenceDimensionality reductionComputer visionNonlinear systemData visualizationMetric (unit)Pattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hyperspectral image visualization reduces color bands to three, but prevailing linear methods fail to address data characteristics, and nonlinear embeddings are computationally demanding. Qualitative evaluation of embedding is also lacking. We propose faithful stochastic proximity embedding (FSPE), which is a scalable and nonlinear dimensionality reduction method. FSPE considers the nonlinear characteristics of spectral signatures, yet it avoids the costly computation of geodesic distances that are often required by other nonlinear methods. Furthermore, we employ a pixelwise metric that measures the quality of hyperspectral image visualization at each pixel. FSPE outperforms the state-of-art methods by at least 12% on average and up to 25% in the qualitative measure. An implementation on graphics processing units is two orders of magnitude faster than the baseline. Our method opens the path to high-fidelity and real-time analysis of hyperspectral images.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing LettersSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207