A COMPARISON STUDY OF DIFFERENT MARKER SELECTION METHODS FOR SPECTRAL-SPATIAL CLASSIFICATION OF HYPERSPECTRAL IMAGES
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it