A laboratory-created dataset with ground-truth for hyperspectral unmixing evaluation
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.
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) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
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".