Automatic class labeling of classified imagery using a hyperspectral library
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Image classification is a fundamental information extraction procedure in remote sensing that is used in land-cover and land-use mapping.Despite being considered as a replacement for manual mapping, it still requires some degree of analyst intervention.This makes the process of image classification time consuming, subjective, and error prone.For example, in unsupervised classification, pixels are automatically grouped into classes, but the user has to manually label the classes as one land-cover type or another.As a general rule, the larger the number of classes, the more difficult it is to assign meaningful class labels.A fully automated post-classification procedure for class labeling was developed in an attempt to alleviate this problem.It labels spectral classes by matching their spectral characteristics with reference spectra.A Landsat TM image of an agricultural area was used for performance assessment.The algorithm was used to label a 20-and 100-class image generated by the ISODATA classifier.The 20-class image was used to compare the technique with the traditional manual labeling of classes, and the 100-class image was used to compare it with the Spectral Angle Mapper and Maximum Likelihood classifiers.The proposed technique produced a map that had an overall accuracy of 51%, outperforming the manual labeling (40% to 45% accuracy, depending on the analyst performing the labeling) and the Spectral Angle Mapper classifier (39%), but underperformed compared to the Maximum Likelihood technique (53% to 63%).The newly developed class-labeling algorithm provided better results for alfalfa, beans, corn, grass and sugar beet, whereas canola, corn, fallow, flax, potato, and wheat were identified with similar or lower accuracy, depending on the classifier it was compared with.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".