MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562813894 · doi:10.1088/1361-6420/aa5489

The pre-image problem for Laplacian Eigenmaps utilizing <i>L</i> <sub>1</sub> regularization with applications to data fusion

2016· article· en· W2562813894 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alexander Cloninger, Wojciech Czaja, Timothy Doster

Bibliographic record

VenueInverse Problems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Image Fusion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDefense Threat Reduction AgencyUniversity of Southern MississippiRyerson UniversityU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsLaplace operatorNonlinear dimensionality reductionFeature (linguistics)Computer visionPattern recognition (psychology)InpaintingImage (mathematics)Computer scienceDimensionality reduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As the popularity of non-linear manifold learning techniques such as kernel PCA and Laplacian Eigenmaps grows, vast improvements have been seen in many areas of data processing, including heterogeneous data fusion and integration. One problem with the non-linear techniques, however, is the lack of an easily calculable pre-image. Existence of such pre-image would allow visualization of the fused data not only in the embedded space, but also in the original data space. The ability to make such comparisons can be crucial for data analysts and other subject matter experts who are the end users of novel mathematical algorithms. In this paper, we propose a pre-image algorithm for Laplacian Eigenmaps. Our method offers major improvements over existing techniques, which allow us to address the problem of noisy inputs and the issue of how to calculate the pre-image of a point outside the convex hull of training samples; both of which have been overlooked in previous studies in this field. We conclude by showing that our pre-image algorithm, combined with feature space rotations, allows us to recover occluded pixels of an imaging modality based off knowledge of that image measured by heterogeneous modalities. We demonstrate this data recovery on heterogeneous hyperspectral (HS) cameras, as well as by recovering LIDAR measurements from HS data.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInverse ProblemsSame topicAdvanced Image Fusion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207