MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285387698 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0269174

The effects of spectral dimensionality reduction on hyperspectral pixel classification: A case study

2022· article· en· W4285387698 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingPixelArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Dimensionality reductionCompression (physics)Image resolutionImage compressionRemote sensingComputer visionImage processingImage (mathematics)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a systematic study of the effects of hyperspectral pixel dimensionality reduction on the pixel classification task. We use five dimensionality reduction methods-PCA, KPCA, ICA, AE, and DAE-to compress 301-dimensional hyperspectral pixels. Compressed pixels are subsequently used to perform pixel classifications. Pixel classification accuracies together with compression method, compression rates, and reconstruction errors provide a new lens to study the suitability of a compression method for the task of pixel classification. We use three high-resolution hyperspectral image datasets, representing three common landscape types (i.e. urban, transitional suburban, and forests) collected by the Remote Sensing and Spatial Ecosystem Modeling laboratory of the University of Toronto. We found that PCA, KPCA, and ICA post greater signal reconstruction capability; however, when compression rates are more than 90% these methods show lower classification scores. AE and DAE methods post better classification accuracy at 95% compression rate, however their performance drops as compression rate approaches 97%. Our results suggest that both the compression method and the compression rate are important considerations when designing a hyperspectral pixel classification pipeline.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it