A laboratory-created dataset with ground-truth for hyperspectral unmixing evaluation
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
Spectral unmixing is an important and challenging problem in hyperspectral data processing. This topic has been extensively studied and a variety of unmixing algorithms have been proposed in the literature. However, the lack of publicly available dataset with ground-truth makes it difficult to evaluate and compare the performance of unmixing algorithms in a quantitative and objective manner. Most of the existing works rely on the use of numerical synthetic data and an intuitive inspection of the results of real data. To alleviate this dilemma, in this study, we design several experimental scenes in our laboratory, including printed checkerboards, mixed quartz sands, and reflection with a vertical board. A dataset is then created by imaging these scenes with the hyperspectral camera in our laboratory, providing 36 mixtures with more than 130, 000 pixels with 256 wavelength bands ranging from 400nm to 1000nm. The experimental settings are strictly controlled so that pure material spectral signatures and material compositions are known. To the best of our knowledge, this dataset is the first publicly available dataset created in a systematic manner with ground-truth for spectral unmixing. Some typical linear and nonlinear unmixing algorithms are also tested with this dataset and lead to meaningful results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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