Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
162 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Toulouse Hyperspectral Data Set: a benchmark data set to assess semi-supervised spectral representation learning and pixel-wise classification techniques (2311.08863v3)

Published 15 Nov 2023 in cs.CV

Abstract: Airborne hyperspectral images can be used to map the land cover in large urban areas, thanks to their very high spatial and spectral resolutions on a wide spectral domain. While the spectral dimension of hyperspectral images is highly informative of the chemical composition of the land surface, the use of state-of-the-art machine learning algorithms to map the land cover has been dramatically limited by the availability of training data. To cope with the scarcity of annotations, semi-supervised and self-supervised techniques have lately raised a lot of interest in the community. Yet, the publicly available hyperspectral data sets commonly used to benchmark machine learning models are not totally suited to evaluate their generalization performances due to one or several of the following properties: a limited geographical coverage (which does not reflect the spectral diversity in metropolitan areas), a small number of land cover classes and a lack of appropriate standard train / test splits for semi-supervised and self-supervised learning. Therefore, we release in this paper the Toulouse Hyperspectral Data Set that stands out from other data sets in the above-mentioned respects in order to meet key issues in spectral representation learning and classification over large-scale hyperspectral images with very few labeled pixels. Besides, we discuss and experiment self-supervised techniques for spectral representation learning, including the Masked Autoencoder, and establish a baseline for pixel-wise classification achieving 85% overall accuracy and 77% F1 score. The Toulouse Hyperspectral Data Set and our code are publicly available at https://www.toulouse-hyperspectral-data-set.com and https://www.github.com/Romain3Ch216/tlse-experiments, respectively.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (63)
  1. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 16000–16009, 2022.
  2. M. Labbas. Modélisation hydrologique de bassins versants périurbains et influence de l’occupation du sol et de la gestion des eaux pluviales. Application au bassin de l’Yzeron (130 km2). Theses, Doctorat, spécialité : Océan, Atmosphère, Hydrologie, Université de Grenoble, 2015.
  3. Perkins F.E. Bras R.L. Effects of urbanization on catchment response. Journal of Hydraulics Division, 101:451–466, 1975.
  4. M. Desbordes. Principales causes d’aggravation des dommages dus aux inondations par ruissellement superficiel en milieu urbanisé. Bulletin hydrologie urbaine, 4:2–10, 1989.
  5. Potential impacts of land use/cover and climate changes on ecologically relevant flows. Journal of Hydrology, 584:124654, 2020.
  6. Evaluating the impact of land uses on stream integrity using machine learning algorithms. Science of The Total Environment, 696:133858, 2019.
  7. Evaluating the potential for urban heat-island mitigation by greening parking lots. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 9(4):323 – 332, 2010.
  8. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, volume 1. Cambridge University Press, 2022.
  9. Urban soil microbial community and microbial-related carbon storage are severely limited by sealing. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 21:1455–1465, 2021.
  10. The effects of sealing on urban soil carbon and nutrients. SOIL, 7(2):661–675, 2021.
  11. EU: European Commission. Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing. Luxembourg: European Union SWD (2012) 101, 2012.
  12. The anthropogenic sealing of soils in urban areas. Landscape and urban planning, 90(1-2):1–10, 2009.
  13. Direct and inverse radiative transfer solutions for visible and near-infrared hyperspectral imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 43(7):1552–1562, 2005.
  14. Atmospheric correction algorithms for hyperspectral remote sensing data of land and ocean. Remote sensing of environment, 113:S17–S24, 2009.
  15. A survey of active learning algorithms for supervised remote sensing image classification. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 5(3):606–617, 2011.
  16. Active learning for hyperspectral image classification: A comparative review. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, pages 2–24, 2022.
  17. Semi-supervised graph-based hyperspectral image classification. IEEE transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 45(10):3044–3054, 2007.
  18. Semi-supervised deep learning using pseudo labels for hyperspectral image classification. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 27(3):1259–1270, 2017.
  19. A review on graph-based semi-supervised learning methods for hyperspectral image classification. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science, 23(2):243–248, 2020.
  20. Self-supervised learning with adaptive distillation for hyperspectral image classification. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60:1–13, 2021.
  21. Deep learning for classification of hyperspectral data: A comparative review. IEEE geoscience and remote sensing magazine, 7(2):159–173, 2019.
  22. The influence of sampling methods on pixel-wise hyperspectral image classification with 3d convolutional neural networks. In IGARSS 2018-2018 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, pages 2087–2090. IEEE, 2018.
  23. On the effect of spatially non-disjoint training and test samples on estimated model generalization capabilities in supervised classification with spatial features. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 14(11):2008–2012, 2017.
  24. 2018 ieee grss data fusion challenge – fusion of multispectral lidar and hyperspectral data. 2020.
  25. Multi-source datasets acquired over toulouse (france) in 2021 for urban microclimate studies during the camcatt/ai4geo field campaign. Data in Brief, 48:109109, 2023.
  26. Inertia-constrained pixel-by-pixel nonnegative matrix factorisation: A hyperspectral unmixing method dealing with intra-class variability. Remote Sensing, 10(11):1706, 2018.
  27. Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research, 9(11), 2008.
  28. Semi-supervised semantic segmentation in earth observation: The minifrance suite, dataset analysis and multi-task network study. Machine Learning, pages 1–36, 2021.
  29. Piers J Sellers. Canopy reflectance, photosynthesis and transpiration. International journal of remote sensing, 6(8):1335–1372, 1985.
  30. Mapping ridolfia segetum patches in sunflower crop using remote sensing. Weed Research, 47(2):164–172, 2007.
  31. WC Bausch and RAJIV Khosla. Quickbird satellite versus ground-based multi-spectral data for estimating nitrogen status of irrigated maize. Precision Agriculture, 11:274–290, 2010.
  32. Spectral reflectance changes associated with autumn senescence of aesculus hippocastanum l. and acer platanoides l. leaves. spectral features and relation to chlorophyll estimation. Journal of plant physiology, 143(3):286–292, 1994.
  33. Classification and change detection of built-up lands from landsat-7 etm+ and landsat-8 oli/tirs imageries: A comparative assessment of various spectral indices. Ecological indicators, 56:205–217, 2015.
  34. Alfredo R Huete. A soil-adjusted vegetation index (savi). Remote sensing of environment, 25(3):295–309, 1988.
  35. Deep long-tailed learning: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2023.
  36. Unsupervised representation learning by predicting image rotations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.07728, 2018.
  37. Discriminative unsupervised feature learning with convolutional neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014.
  38. Unsupervised feature learning via non-parametric instance discrimination. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3733–3742, 2018.
  39. Olivier Henaff. Data-efficient image recognition with contrastive predictive coding. In International conference on machine learning, pages 4182–4192. PMLR, 2020.
  40. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748, 2018.
  41. Contrastive multiview coding. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XI 16, pages 776–794. Springer, 2020.
  42. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1597–1607. PMLR, 2020.
  43. Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 9650–9660, 2021.
  44. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015.
  45. S4l: Self-supervised semi-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 1476–1485, 2019.
  46. Semi-supervised learning made simple with self-supervised clustering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3187–3197, 2023.
  47. Self-supervised learning from images with a joint-embedding predictive architecture. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15619–15629, 2023.
  48. Hyperspectral image classification with contrastive self-supervised learning under limited labeled samples. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 19:1–5, 2022.
  49. Self-supervised learning-based oil spill detection of hyperspectral images. Science China Technological Sciences, 65(4):793–801, 2022.
  50. Hyperspectral image restoration with self-supervised learning: A two-stage training approach. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60:1–17, 2022.
  51. Nearest neighboring self-supervised learning for hyperspectral image classification. Remote Sensing, 15(6), 2023.
  52. Deep clustering for unsupervised learning of visual features. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 132–149, 2018.
  53. Unsupervised learning of visual representations by solving jigsaw puzzles. In European conference on computer vision, pages 69–84. Springer, 2016.
  54. Spectralmae: Spectral masked autoencoder for hyperspectral remote sensing image reconstruction. Sensors, 23(7):3728, 2023.
  55. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale, 2021.
  56. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.
  57. Spectralformer: Rethinking hyperspectral image classification with transformers. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60:1–15, 2021.
  58. Scale-mae: A scale-aware masked autoencoder for multiscale geospatial representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4088–4099, 2023.
  59. Exploring simple siamese representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 15750–15758, 2021.
  60. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9729–9738, 2020.
  61. Leo Breiman. Random forests. Machine learning, 45:5–32, 2001.
  62. Segment anything, 2023.
  63. Decision trees for hierarchical multi-label classification. Machine learning, 73:185–214, 2008.
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.