Unsupervised Identification of Targeted Spectra Applying Rank1-NMF and FCC Algorithms in Long-Wave Hyperspectral Infrared Imagery
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
Clustering methods unequivocally show considerable influence on many recent algorithms and play an important role in hyperspectral data analysis. Here, we challenge the clustering for mineral identification using two different strategies in hyperspectral long wave infrared (LWIR, 7.7–11.8 μm). For that, we compare two algorithms to perform the mineral identification in a unique dataset. The first algorithm uses spectral comparison techniques for all the pixel-spectra and creates RGB false color composites (FCC). Then, a color based clustering is used to group the regions (called FCC-clustering). The second algorithm clusters all the pixel-spectra to directly group the spectra. Then, the first rank of non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) extracts the representative of each cluster and compares results with the spectral library of JPL/NASA. These techniques give the comparison values as features which convert into RGB-FCC as the results (called clustering rank1-NMF). We applied K-means as clustering approach, which can be modified in any other similar clustering approach. The results of the clustering-rank1-NMF algorithm indicate significant computational efficiency (more than 20 times faster than the previous approach) and promising performance for mineral identification having up to 75.8% and 84.8% average accuracies for FCC-clustering and clustering-rank1 NMF algorithms (using spectral angle mapper (SAM)), respectively. Furthermore, several spectral comparison techniques are used also such as adaptive matched subspace detector (AMSD), orthogonal subspace projection (OSP) algorithm, principal component analysis (PCA), local matched filter (PLMF), SAM, and normalized cross correlation (NCC) for both algorithms and most of them show a similar range in accuracy. However, SAM and NCC are preferred due to their computational simplicity. Our algorithms strive to identify eleven different mineral grains (biotite, diopside, epidote, goethite, kyanite, scheelite, smithsonite, tourmaline, pyrope, olivine, and quartz).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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