Multiple Kernel Learning for Remote Sensing Image Classification
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
This paper presents multiple kernel learning (MKL) in the context of remote sensing (RS) image classification problems by illustrating main characteristics of different MKL algorithms and analyzing their properties in RS domain. A categorization of different MKL algorithms is initially introduced, and some promising MKL algorithms for each category are presented. In particular, MKL algorithms presented only in machine learning are introduced in RS. Then, the investigated MKL algorithms are theoretically compared in terms of their: 1) computational complexities; 2) accuracy with different qualities of kernels; and 3) accuracy with different numbers of kernels. After the theoretical comparison, experimental analyses are carried out to compare different MKL algorithms in terms of: 1) model selection and 2) feature fusion problems. On the basis of the theoretical and experimental analyses of MKL algorithms, some guidelines for a proper selection of the MKL algorithms are derived.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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