MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399666848 · doi:10.5566/ias.3078

An Experimental Study for the Effects of Noise on Hyperspectral Imagery Classification

2024· article· en· W4399666848 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueImage Analysis & Stereology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space AgencyConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingNoise (video)Computer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Gaussian noiseData cubeContextual image classificationComputer visionImage (mathematics)Data mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hyperspectral image (HSI) classification is a very important topic in remote sensing. There are many published methods for HSI classification in the literature. Nevertheless, it is not clear which method is the most robust to noise in HSI data cubes. In this paper, we conduct a systematic study to examine the effects of noise in HSI data cubes on classification methods. We compare ten existing methods for HSI classification when Gaussian white noise (GWN) and shot noise are present in the HSI data cubes. We have figured out which method is the most robust to GWN and shot noise respectively by experimenting on three widely used HSI data cubes. We have also measured the CPU computational time of every method compared in this paper for HSI classification.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.286 · 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