Similarity-Based Multiple Kernel Learning Algorithms for Classification of Remotely Sensed Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple kernel learning (MKL) algorithms are proposed to address the problems associated with kernel selection of the kernel-based classification algorithms. Using a group of kernels rather than one single kernel, the MKL algorithms aim to provide better classification efficiency. This paper presents new similarity-based MKL algorithms to classify remote-sensing images. These algorithms find the optimal combination of kernels by maximizing the similarity between a combination of kernels and an ideal kernel. In this framework, we initially introduced three similarity measures to be used: kernel alignment, norm of kernel difference, and Hilbert-Schmidt independence criterion. Then, we proposed to solve the optimization problems of the MKL algorithm associated with each similarity measure adopting heuristic and convex optimization methods. The performances of the proposed algorithms were compared with a single kernel support vector machines as well as other MKL algorithms for classifying the features extracted from the high-resolution and hyperspectral images. The results demonstrated that the similarity-based MKL algorithms performed better than other algorithms, especially when their optimization problems were solved using the convex optimization methods or when few training samples were available. Moreover, when the optimization problems of these algorithms were solved using the heuristic optimization methods, they were able to yield acceptable performances and were faster than other MKL algorithms.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".