Clustering-Based Band Selection Using Structural Similarity Index and Entropy for Hyperspectral Image Classification
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
Despite the unique capabilities of hyperspectral images for classification tasks, handling the high dimension of these data is challenging. Therefore, dimension reduction algorithms have been proposed to solve this challenge. In this paper, an unsupervised Feature Selection (FS) algorithm was proposed for hyperspectral image classification. First, the entropy values of hyperspectral bands were employed to identify and remove noisy bands. Afterward, the Structural Similarity (SSIM) index and the k-means clustering algorithm were combined to select a few representative bands. Subsequently, the selected bands were injected into a supervised classifier, and the obtained Overall Accuracy (OA) and Kappa Coefficient (KC) were used to evaluate the performance of the proposed method. Finally, the results were compared with the ones achieved from other well-known and state-of-the-art FS approaches. The results revealed that the proposed method outperformed other FS algorithms. Furthermore, the proposed FS algorithm obtained equal or higher OA and KC in comparison with the case of employing all hyperspectral bands. Additionally, a stability analysis step was performed to investigate the consistency of the proposed method. The results suggest the potential of the FS approach for hyperspectral image 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.
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