Automatic pigment identification on roman Egyptian paintings by using sparse modeling of hyperspectral images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we study the problem of automatic identification of pigments applied to paintings using hyperspectral reflectance data. Here, we cast the problem of pigment identification in a novel way by decomposing the spectrum into pure pigments. The pure pigment exemplars, chosen and prepared in our laboratory based on historic sources and archaeological examples, closely resemble the materials used to make ancient paintings. To validate our algorithm, we created a set of mock-up paintings in our laboratory consisting of a broad palette of mixtures of pure pigments. Our results clearly demonstrate more accurate estimation of pigment composition than purely distance-based methods such as spectral angle mapping (SAM) and spectral correlation mapping (SCM). In addition, we studied hyperspectral imagery acquired of a Roman-Egyptian portrait, excavated from the site of Tebtunis in the Fayum region of Egypt, and dated to about the 2nd century CE. Using ground truth information obtained using Raman spectroscopy, we show qualitatively that our method accurately detects pigment composition for the specific pigments hematite and indigo.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".