Iterative Spectral Unmixing for Optimizing Per-Pixel Endmember Sets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fractional abundances predicted for a given pixel using spectral mixture analysis (SMA) are most accurate when only the endmembers that comprise it are used, with larger errors occurring if inappropriate endmembers are included in the unmixing process. This paper presents an iterative implementation of SMA (ISMA) to determine optimal per-pixel endmember sets from the image endmember set using two steps: 1) an iterative unconstrained unmixing, which removes one endmember per iteration based on minimum abundance and 2) analysis of the root-mean-square error as a function of iteration to locate the critical iteration defining the optimal endmember set. The ISMA was tested using simulated data at various signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), and the results were compared with those of published unmixing methods. The ISMA method correctly selected the optimal endmember set 96% of the time for SNR of 100 : 1. As a result, per-pixel errors in fractional abundances were lower than for unmixing each pixel using the full endmember set. ISMA was also applied to Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer hyperspectral data of Cuprite, NV. Results show that the ISMA is effective in obtaining abundance fractions that are physically realistic (sum close to one and nonnegative) and is more effective at selecting endmembers that occur within a pixel as opposed to those that are simply used to improve the goodness of fit of the model but not part of the mixture
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".