A Reconstruction Method for Hyperspectral Remote Sensing Reflectance in the Visible Domain and Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A reconstruction method was developed for hyperspectral remote sensing reflectance (Rrs) data in the visible domain (400–700 nm) based on in situ observations. A total of 2,647 Rrs spectra were collected over a wide variety of water environments including open ocean, coastal and inland waters. Ten schemes with different band numbers (6 to 15) were tested based on a nonlinear model. It was found that the accuracy of the reconstruction increased with the increase of input band numbers. Eight of these schemes met the accuracy criterion with the mean absolute error (MAE) and mean relative error (MRE) values between reconstructed and in situ Rrs less than 0.00025 sr−1 and 5%, respectively. We chose the eight‐band scheme for further evaluation because of its decent performance. The results revealed that the parameterization derived by the eight‐band scheme was efficient for restoring Rrs spectra from different water bodies. In contrast to the previous studies that used a linear model with 15 spectral bands, the nonlinear model with the eight‐band scheme yielded a comparable reconstruction performance. The MAE and MRE values were generally less than 0.00016 sr−1 and 3% respectively; much lower than the uncertainties in satellite‐derived Rrs products. Furthermore, a preliminary experiment of this method on the data from the Hyperspectral Imager for the Coastal Ocean (HICO) showed high potential in the future applications for reconstructing Rrs spectra from space‐borne optical sensors. Overall, the eight‐band scheme with our nonlinear model was proven to be optimal for hyperspectral Rrs reconstruction in the visible domain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".