Hyperspectral Image Compression Using Implicit Neural Representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hyperspectral images, which record the electro-magnetic spectrum for a pixel in the image of a scene, often store hundreds of channels per pixel and contain an order of magnitude more information than a similarly-sized RBG color image. Consequently, concomitant with the decreasing cost of capturing these images, there is a need to develop efficient techniques for storing, transmitting, and analyzing hyperspectral images. This paper develops a method for hyperspectral image compression using implicit neural representations where a multi-layer perceptron network fΘwith sinusoidal activation functions “learns” to map pixel locations to pixel intensities for a given hyperspectral image I. fΘthus acts as a compressed encoding of this image, and the original image is reconstructed by evaluating fϑat each pixel location. We have evaluated our method on four benchmarks-Indian Pines, Jasper Ridge, Pavia University, and Cuprite-and we show that the proposed method achieves better compression than JPEG, JPEG2000, and PCA-DCT at low bitrates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".