The Successive Projection Algorithm (SPA), an Algorithm with a Spatial Constraint for the Automatic Search of Endmembers in Hyperspectral Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spectral mixing is a problem inherent to remote sensing data and results in fewimage pixel spectra representing "pure" targets. Linear spectral mixture analysis isdesigned to address this problem and it assumes that the pixel-to-pixel variability in ascene results from varying proportions of spectral endmembers. In this paper we present adifferent endmember-search algorithm called the Successive Projection Algorithm (SPA).SPA builds on convex geometry and orthogonal projection common to other endmembersearch algorithms by including a constraint on the spatial adjacency of endmembercandidate pixels. Consequently it can reduce the susceptibility to outlier pixels andgenerates realistic endmembers.This is demonstrated using two case studies (AVIRISCuprite cube and Probe-1 imagery for Baffin Island) where image endmembers can bevalidated with ground truth data. The SPA algorithm extracts endmembers fromhyperspectral data without having to reduce the data dimensionality. It uses the spectralangle (alike IEA) and the spatial adjacency of pixels in the image to constrain the selectionof candidate pixels representing an endmember. We designed SPA based on theobservation that many targets have spatial continuity (e.g. bedrock lithologies) in imageryand thus a spatial constraint would be beneficial in the endmember search. An additionalproduct of the SPA is data describing the change of the simplex volume ratio between successive iterations during the endmember extraction. It illustrates the influence of a newendmember on the data structure, and provides information on the convergence of thealgorithm. It can provide a general guideline to constrain the total number of endmembersin a search.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".