Generative Adversarial Networks and Conditional Random Fields for Hyperspectral Image Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we address the hyperspectral image (HSI) classification task with a generative adversarial network and conditional random field (GAN-CRF)-based framework, which integrates a semisupervised deep learning and a probabilistic graphical model, and make three contributions. First, we design four types of convolutional and transposed convolutional layers that consider the characteristics of HSIs to help with extracting discriminative features from limited numbers of labeled HSI samples. Second, we construct semisupervised generative adversarial networks (GANs) to alleviate the shortage of training samples by adding labels to them and implicitly reconstructing real HSI data distribution through adversarial training. Third, we build dense conditional random fields (CRFs) on top of the random variables that are initialized to the softmax predictions of the trained GANs and are conditioned on HSIs to refine classification maps. This semisupervised framework leverages the merits of discriminative and generative models through a game-theoretical approach. Moreover, even though we used very small numbers of labeled training HSI samples from the two most challenging and extensively studied datasets, the experimental results demonstrated that spectral-spatial GAN-CRF (SS-GAN-CRF) models achieved top-ranking accuracy for semisupervised HSI classification.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".