AQF: Assessing the Quality of Hyperspectral Reconstruction with a Learnable Metric
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
This paper proposes a learnable metric to measure the reconstruction quality of hyperspectral images obtained by computational hyperspectral imaging. Computational hyperspectral imaging aims to obtain low-cost hyperspectral images through consumer camera. While many hyperspectral reconstruction models have been developed for this purpose, conventional image and spectral quality metrics are insufficient to measure the scientific value of the reconstructed HSI cube. This paper proposes an adaptive quality fusion metric (AQF), adaptively aggregating the quality measures from point-wise, spatial-wise and spectral-wise aspects to assess the scientific value preserved by the reconstructed HSI. The proposed AQF metric uses weight parameters generated by a modified hypernetwork to determine the contribution for the three aspects given paired of groundtruth HSI and reconstructed HSI. Experimental results show its compatibility with existing metrics while accurately measuring the scientific information retained by the reconstructed HSI for hyperspectral applications.
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