Bibliographic record
Abstract
The processing of remotely sensed data is innately an inverse problem where properties of spatial processes are inferred from the observations based on a generative model. Meaningful data inversion relies on well-defined generative models that capture key factors in the relationship between the underlying physical process and the measurements. \nUnfortunately, as two mainstream data processing techniques, both mixture models and latent variables models (LVM) are inadequate in describing the complex relationship between the spatial process and the remote sensing data. Consequently, mixture models, such as K-Means, Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM), Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) and Quadratic Discriminant Analysis (QDA), characterize a class by statistics in the original space, ignoring the fact that a class can be better represented by discriminative signals in the hidden/latent feature space, while LVMs, such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Independent Component Analysis (ICA) and Sparse Representation (SR), seek representational signals in the whole image scene that involves multiple spatial processes, neglecting the fact that signal discovery for individual processes is more efficient. \nAlthough the combined use of mixture model and LVMs is required for remote sensing data analysis, there is still a lack of systematic exploration on this important topic in remote sensing literature. Driven by the above considerations, this thesis therefore introduces a mixture of LVM (MLVM) framework for combining the mixture models and LVMs, under which three models are developed in order to address different aspects of remote sensing data processing: (1) a mixture of probabilistic SR (MPSR) is proposed for supervised classification of hyperspectral remote sensing imagery, considering that SR is an emerging and powerful technique for feature extraction and data representation; (2) a mixture model of K “Purified” means (K-P-Means) is proposed for addressing the spectral endmember estimation, which is a fundamental issue in remote sensing data analysis; (3) and a clustering-based PCA model is introduced for SAR image denoising. Under a unified optimization scheme, all models are solved via Expectation and Maximization (EM) algorithm, by iteratively estimating the two groups of parameters, i.e., the labels of pixels and the latent variables. Experiments on simulated data and real remote sensing data demonstrate the advantages of the proposed models in the respective applications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".