MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

AN EFFICIENT INITIALIZATION METHOD FOR K-MEANS CLUSTERING OF HYPERSPECTRAL DATA

2014· article· en· W2123930659 on OpenAlexaff
A. Alizade Naeini, Akram Jamshidzadeh, M. Saadatseresht, Saeid Homayouni

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversità degli Studi di Pavia
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingInitializationCluster analysisComputer scienceEndmemberThresholdingPattern recognition (psychology)Confusion matrixArtificial intelligenceSimplexImage (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. K-means is definitely the most frequently used partitional clustering algorithm in the remote sensing community. Unfortunately due to its gradient decent nature, this algorithm is highly sensitive to the initial placement of cluster centers. This problem deteriorates for the high-dimensional data such as hyperspectral remotely sensed imagery. To tackle this problem, in this paper, the spectral signatures of the endmembers in the image scene are extracted and used as the initial positions of the cluster centers. For this purpose, in the first step, A Neyman–Pearson detection theory based eigen-thresholding method (i.e., the HFC method) has been employed to estimate the number of endmembers in the image. Afterwards, the spectral signatures of the endmembers are obtained using the Minimum Volume Enclosing Simplex (MVES) algorithm. Eventually, these spectral signatures are used to initialize the k-means clustering algorithm. The proposed method is implemented on a hyperspectral dataset acquired by ROSIS sensor with 103 spectral bands over the Pavia University campus, Italy. For comparative evaluation, two other commonly used initialization methods (i.e., Bradley & Fayyad (BF) and Random methods) are implemented and compared. The confusion matrix, overall accuracy and Kappa coefficient are employed to assess the methods’ performance. The evaluations demonstrate that the proposed solution outperforms the other initialization methods and can be applied for unsupervised classification of hyperspectral imagery for landcover mapping.

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207