MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591084634 · doi:10.1109/jstars.2017.2662484

Similarity-Based Multiple Kernel Learning Algorithms for Classification of Remotely Sensed Images

2017· article· en· W2591084634 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersPurdue University
KeywordsMultiple kernel learningKernel (algebra)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmSupport vector machineHeuristicSimilarity (geometry)Optimization problemPattern recognition (psychology)Similarity measureKernel methodMachine learningMathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.215 · 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