A COMPARISON STUDY OF DIFFERENT MARKER SELECTION METHODS FOR SPECTRAL-SPATIAL CLASSIFICATION OF HYPERSPECTRAL IMAGES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. An effective approach based on the Minimum Spanning Forest (MSF), grown from automatically selected markers using Support Vector Machines (SVM), has been proposed for spectral-spatial classification of hyperspectral images by Tarabalka et al. This paper aims at improving this approach by using image segmentation to integrate the spatial information into marker selection process. In this study, the markers are extracted from the classification maps, obtained by both SVM and segmentation algorithms, and then are used to build the MSF. The segmentation algorithms are the watershed, expectation maximization (EM) and hierarchical clustering. These algorithms are used in parallel and independently to segment the image. Moreover, the pixels of each class, with the largest population in the classification map, are kept for each region of the segmentation map. Lastly, the most reliable classified pixels are chosen from among the exiting pixels as markers. Two benchmark urban hyperspectral datasets are used for evaluation: Washington DC Mall and Berlin. The results of our experiments indicate that, compared to the original MSF approach, the marker selection using segmentation algorithms leads in more accurate classification maps.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".