Machine learning techniques for analysis of hyperspectral images to determine quality of food products: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-destructive testing techniques have gained importance in monitoring food quality over the years. Hyperspectral imaging is one of the important non-destructive quality testing techniques which provides both spatial and spectral information. Advancement in machine learning techniques for rapid analysis with higher classification accuracy have improved the potential of using this technique for food applications. This paper provides an overview of the application of different machine learning techniques in analysis of hyperspectral images for determination of food quality. It covers the principle underlying hyperspectral imaging, the advantages, and the limitations of each machine learning technique. The machine learning techniques exhibited rapid analysis of hyperspectral images of food products with high accuracy thereby enabling robust classification or regression models. The selection of effective wavelengths from the hyperspectral data is of paramount importance since it greatly reduces the computational load and time which enhances the scope for real time applications. Due to the feature learning nature of deep learning, it is one of the most promising and powerful techniques for real time applications. However, the field of deep learning is relatively new and need further research for its full utilization. Similarly, lifelong machine learning paves the way for real time HSI applications but needs further research to incorporate the seasonal variations in food quality. Further, the research gaps in machine learning techniques for hyperspectral image analysis, and the prospects are discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".