Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Hyperspectral Imaging-Based Grain Quality Assessment With Limited Labelled Data

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A few-shot prototypical network trained on 2,880 hyperspectral images classifies eight grain types at 97.75 percent accuracy, within two points of a fully trained ResNet-18 that used 16,666 images.

desk verdict A practical few-shot HSI grain classifier with a sensible idea but a leaky evaluation: the crop-level split with heavy overlap undermines the headline accuracy and the data-efficiency claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10924 v1 pith:ZTC7PWOJ submitted 2024-11-17 cs.CV cs.AI

Priyabrata Karmakar , Manzur Murshed , Shyh Wei Teng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords few-shotlearninghyperspectralimaginggrainqualityassessmentprototypicalnetworkscollectiveclassprototypeschannelattentionbulkclassificationdata-efficientdeep
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that few-shot learning can make hyperspectral grain-quality assessment practical when labelled images are scarce. Its central result is an eight-class classification experiment: a prototypical network trained on 2,880 cropped hyperspectral images reaches 97.75 percent accuracy, within two percentage points of the 99.75 percent reported for a fully fine-tuned ResNet-18 trained on 16,666 images. To make this work at inference, the authors introduce collective class prototypes (CCPs), formed by averaging per-episode class prototypes after training, which replace support sets and improve accuracy over individual support sets. A second experiment shows the same classifier, trained on six grain types, can generalise to two excluded types with 98.33 percent accuracy when the support set contains only the new classes. The paper offers these results as evidence that data-efficient, non-destructive grain quality assessment is feasible for supply-chain settings where new grades appear faster than labelled data can be collected.

What carries the argument

The central object is the collective class prototype (CCP), defined as the average of the per-episode prototypes of a class across the training episodes of the best training iteration. Each per-episode prototype is the mean embedding of a support set computed by a prototypical network, a metric-based few-shot learner that classifies a query by Euclidean distance to stored class prototypes. Because CCPs are pre-computed after training, inference never needs to embed a live support set, and averaging across episodes suppresses outlier influence inside any single support set. The second component is a modified squeeze-and-excitation attention block placed before the spectral-downsampling layer: its squeeze step combines adaptive average pooling with adaptive max pooling so spectral bands are weighted by both global trends and strong activations before the 204 channels enter the CNN.

What would settle it

Trace each crop back to its original hyperspectral scan and recompute the 8-way accuracy with an image-level split, so that no training crop shares a source scan with any test crop. If the accuracy drops materially below 97.75 percent, the data-efficiency claim is weakened; a scan-level split is the direct test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The claim, in the paper's own terms, is that a few-shot classifier can match a fully trained classifier for bulk-grain hyperspectral classification while training on a fraction of the labels. With a prototypical network as the few-shot learner and a ResNet-18 backbone adapted to hyperspectral input by a linear spectral-downsampling layer, the 8-way classifier scores 97.75 percent accuracy using 2,880 training images, compared with 99.75 percent for the fully fine-tuned ResNet-18 in the reference work, which used 16,666 images. The same architecture, trained on six classes only, classifies two held-out grain types at 98.33 percent when the support set contains only the held-out classes, and at 83.89 percent when the support set includes all eight classes. The paper attributes the 8-way result to the combination of using all 204 spectral channels with channel attention and to collective class prototypes, which average episode-level prototypes into a robust class representation.

Load-bearing premise

Training and test sets are formed by randomly selecting 360 crops per class from a pool of 128×128 crops taken with a 64-pixel overlap, and the paper does not state that all crops from the same original hyperspectral scan are kept in one split; if overlapping crops from one source scan land on both sides, the reported accuracies could be inflated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An 8-way prototypical-network classifier with CCPs reaches 97.75 percent accuracy on the eight grain classes, within 2 percentage points of the 99.75 percent fully-trained baseline, while using 17.28 percent of its training data.
  • Using all 204 spectral channels with channel attention outperforms averaging channels down to 102 (97.75 vs 93.33 percent), indicating that channel averaging discards useful information.
  • CCPs improve inference accuracy over individual support sets (97.75 vs 96.29 ± 1.21 percent) and remove per-run support-set feature extraction, which shortens inference time.
  • A classifier trained on six classes recognises two unseen grain types at 98.33 percent when only those classes compete, and at 83.89 percent when all eight classes are possible, quantifying what a supply-chain deployment would lose in an open-world setting.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's own comparison, the data-efficiency claim is not a controlled experiment, because the two pipelines differ in fine-tuning, episode construction, and inference protocol; separating method gains from data-volume gains would require an image-level re-split and matched training schedules.
  • CCPs are an inference-time ensembling over support-set episodes, so the same averaging idea could transfer to other metric-based few-shot learners such as matching networks.
  • A testable extension is to apply CCPs to open-set grades and to regression targets such as protein or moisture content; the confusion patterns between Oland/Halland and WH5/WH4 predict that close classes in the embedding space will be the failure point.
  • The combined average-plus-max squeeze step could be tested on other HSI domains or with fewer spectral channels, where the 22.21-hour training cost of the 204-channel attention configuration is harder to justify.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies few-shot learning to bulk-grain hyperspectral classification. It builds on the ResNet-18 pipeline of [22], adds a spectral downsampling layer, proposes a modified squeeze-and-excitation attention block, and uses a prototypical network. For the seen-class (8-way) scenario, it introduces collective class prototypes (CCPs) for inference; for the unseen-class scenario, it evaluates a 6-way-trained classifier on held-out classes. The headline result is 97.75% accuracy with 2,880 training images in the 8-way scenario, compared with 99.75% reported by [22] with 16,666 images, which the abstract uses to claim that the FSL classifier's accuracy is comparable to that of a fully trained classifier.

Significance. The practical question is worthwhile: showing that a few-shot classifier can approach a fully supervised classifier on hyperspectral grain images with a small fraction of labels would be useful for supply-chain deployment. The paper uses a public dataset, reports training times and confusion matrices, and evaluates both seen and unseen classes, which are positive features. However, the current evaluation does not yet establish the central data-efficiency claim because the comparison to [22] is uncontrolled, the train/test split may permit information leakage through overlapping crops, and the proposed attention modification is not isolated by an ablation.

major comments (5)
  1. [V.A] The train/test split is not specified at the original image level. The text says hyperspectral images were cropped into 128x128 windows with a 64-pixel overlap, and then 360 images from each class were randomly selected for training with the rest used for testing. If this random selection is done at the crop level, overlapping crops from the same original image can appear in both training and test sets; a test crop can share up to 50% of its pixels with a training crop. This can inflate the reported accuracy by letting the classifier recognize near-duplicate content rather than generalize to new scenes. The authors should either perform an image-level split or explicitly verify that no crop-level overlap exists between training and test sets, and report accuracy on a non-overlapping test partition.
  2. [V, Table V] The comparison to [22] is uncontrolled. Table V compares 97.75% from the proposed method to 99.75% from [22], but these are accuracies on different test partitions and possibly different preprocessing choices. Without a shared held-out test set, the table does not support the abstract's claim that the FSL classifier is comparable to a fully trained classifier. The authors should evaluate the FSL classifier and the fully supervised ResNet-18 baseline on the same test set, using the same crops and preprocessing, and report confidence intervals or standard deviations over multiple random splits.
  3. [IV, Eq. (6), Table II] The contribution of the proposed squeeze modification is not isolated. Equation (6) replaces average pooling with the average of average and max pooling inside the SE block, but Table II only compares 102 channels without attention, 204 channels without attention, and 204 channels with the proposed attention. There is no condition using the standard SE block with average pooling at 204 channels, nor a condition that isolates the max-pooling term. Without these ablations, the experimental results do not show that the modified squeeze mechanism itself improves accuracy.
  4. [VI.A, Table IV] The claim that CCP improves accuracy by 1.46% is not supported by statistical analysis. Table IV reports 96.29 ± 1.21 for support-set inference but only a single value, 97.75%, for CCP, with no variance or significance test. The authors should report means and standard deviations over multiple training runs and random seeds, and use a paired test when comparing CCP against individual support sets.
  5. [VI.B, Table VI] The unseen-class evaluation is difficult to interpret as evidence of generalisation. Strategy 1 in Table VI is a 2-way classification between the two excluded classes, so 98.33% is not informative about generalisation across a realistic set of classes; Strategy 2 reports 83.89% without comparing against a non-FSL baseline, a chance level, or per-class accuracy for the trained six classes. The authors should specify the support-set composition (number of support images per class) and compare against a supervised classifier trained on the six classes on the same test set.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table IV] The table header contains a typo ('ADVANATGE') and the column format is inconsistent; also, the CCP column is the only one without a variance estimate, so the presentation should be made consistent.
  2. [V.B] The description of the training episodes is ambiguous: the text says 24 episodes per epoch with 5-shot and 10-query, but it is not clear whether support and query sets are resampled randomly each epoch or fixed, and whether CCPs are computed from all 24 episodes of the final epoch or from the best epoch. Please clarify.
  3. [Eq. (6)] The notation is inconsistent: Eq. (6) uses I(i, j, c) for the raw hyperspectral input, while Eq. (5) uses I_c for a channel and I'_c for the rescaled channel. Unified notation would improve readability.
  4. [Fig. 2] The attention-weight heatmap lacks axis labels and a colorbar, making it hard to interpret the channel weights across the eight classes. Adding labels and a color scale would help.
  5. [Fig. 6] The t-SNE visualization does not report the perplexity or seed used; adding these details would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the few-shot classification pipeline is evaluated against an external baseline and its components are defined independently of the claimed result.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical study, not a derivation. The few-shot classifier uses a standard prototypical network (Eqs. 1-2), a backbone modification adopted from the external reference [22], and a proposed collective class prototype (Eq. 7) that averages per-episode prototypes. The reported 97.75% accuracy is measured on a held-out test portion of the same [22] database, and the comparison target is the externally reported 99.75% accuracy of [22]. No parameter is fitted to the test set and then renamed as a prediction; the CCP is constructed from training support sets only, and the attention modification is an independent architectural change. The only self-citation ([19]) appears in the introduction to motivate bulk HSI imaging and is not load-bearing for any result. A possible caveat is that the train/test split is described at the crop level with 64-pixel overlap, which could raise a data-leakage or correctness concern, but that is not circularity of the derivation: the claimed comparison would be independently testable under an image-level split. Therefore the central claim does not reduce by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical. The main unstated inputs are the data split protocol, the backbone initialization, and the SE reduction ratio. No fitted constants are used in any derivation, and no new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • SE reduction ratio
    The reduction ratio for the excitation fully connected layer in the proposed SE block is not reported, making the channel attention configuration under-specified.
  • Number of training episodes per epoch = 24
    The paper uses 24 episodes of support and query sets for training, a hand-chosen number that also determines how many prototypes are averaged to form CCPs.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Randomly selecting 360 cropped images per class for training and using the rest for testing yields independent training and test sets without overlap leakage.
    Crops are generated with a 64-pixel overlap (Section V.A), and the paper does not state that the split is done at the original image level. If overlapping crops are shared across splits, the reported accuracy could be inflated.
  • domain assumption The ResNet-18 backbone is initialized in a way that supports learning from 2,880 images over 50 epochs.
    The paper does not specify the initialization strategy (Section V.B). Without a suitable pretrained initialization, the reported accuracy is unlikely; the result may depend on this unstated choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hyperspectral Imaging-Based Grain Quality Assessment With Limited Labelled Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZTC7PWOJ

@misc{pith2026241110924,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hyperspectral Imaging-Based Grain Quality Assessment With Limited Labelled Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZTC7PWOJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10924}
}
read the original abstract

Recently hyperspectral imaging (HSI)-based grain quality assessment has gained research attention. However, unlike other imaging modalities, HSI data lacks sufficient labelled samples required to effectively train deep convolutional neural network (DCNN)-based classifiers. In this paper, we present a novel approach to grain quality assessment using HSI combined with few-shot learning (FSL) techniques. Traditional methods for grain quality evaluation, while reliable, are invasive, time-consuming, and costly. HSI offers a non-invasive, real-time alternative by capturing both spatial and spectral information. However, a significant challenge in applying DCNNs for HSI-based grain classification is the need for large labelled databases, which are often difficult to obtain. To address this, we explore the use of FSL, which enables models to perform well with limited labelled data, making it a practical solution for real-world applications where rapid deployment is required. We also explored the application of FSL for the classification of hyperspectral images of bulk grains to enable rapid quality assessment at various receival points in the grain supply chain. We evaluated the performance of few-shot classifiers in two scenarios: first, classification of grain types seen during training, and second, generalisation to unseen grain types, a crucial feature for real-world applications. In the first scenario, we introduce a novel approach using pre-computed collective class prototypes (CCPs) to enhance inference efficiency and robustness. In the second scenario, we assess the model's ability to classify novel grain types using limited support examples. Our experimental results show that despite using very limited labelled data for training, our FSL classifiers accuracy is comparable to that of a fully trained classifier trained using a significantly larger labelled database.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10924 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Block diagram of Proposed Methodology resulting in more discriminative attention weights across spec￾tral channels. This improved feature representation enhances HSI classification performance. zc = 1 2   1 H × W X H i=1 X W j=1 I(i, j, c) + max i,j I(i, j, c)   . (6) Obtaining sufficient samples for hyperspectral image clas￾sification is challenging, making it difficult to build a fully trained or fine-tuned cl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Heatmap for attention weight distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Confusion matrix of the best result reported in [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Confusion matrix of the best results obtained using proposed 8-way [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Confusion matrix representing the difference in accuracies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualisation of prototypes and CCPs in 2D space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Confusion matrix plot of the evaluation results from partial class [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Hyperspectral imaging for classification of bulk grain samples with deep convolutional neural networks,

    E. S. Dreier, K. M. Sorensen, T. Lund-Hansen, B. M. Jespersen, and K. S. Pedersen, “Hyperspectral imaging for classification of bulk grain samples with deep convolutional neural networks,” Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 107–121, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Near-infrared hyperspectral reflectance imaging for detection of bruises on pickling cucumbers,

    D. P. Ariana, R. Lu, and D. E. Guyer, “Near-infrared hyperspectral reflectance imaging for detection of bruises on pickling cucumbers,” Computers and electronics in agriculture , vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 60–70, 2006

    work page 2006

  3. [2]

    Rapid detection and visualization of slight bruise on apples using hyperspectral imaging,

    X. Zhu and G. Li, “Rapid detection and visualization of slight bruise on apples using hyperspectral imaging,” International journal of food properties, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1709–1719, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    Hyperspectral imaging technology for rapid detection of various microbial contaminants in agricultural and food products,

    H.-J. He and D.-W. Sun, “Hyperspectral imaging technology for rapid detection of various microbial contaminants in agricultural and food products,” Trends in Food Science & Technology , vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 99–109, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    Exploring the potential of nir hyperspectral imaging for automated quantification of rind amount in grated parmigiano reggiano cheese,

    R. Calvini, S. Michelini, V . Pizzamiglio, G. Foca, and A. Ulrici, “Exploring the potential of nir hyperspectral imaging for automated quantification of rind amount in grated parmigiano reggiano cheese,” Food Control, vol. 112, p. 107111, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    Colour analysis in sausages stuffed in mod- ified casings with different storage days using hyperspectral imaging–a feasibility study,

    C.-H. Feng and Y . Makino, “Colour analysis in sausages stuffed in mod- ified casings with different storage days using hyperspectral imaging–a feasibility study,” Food Control, vol. 111, p. 107047, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Predicting wheat kernels’ protein content by near infrared hyperspectral imaging,

    Y . Shuqin, H. Dongjian, and N. Jifeng, “Predicting wheat kernels’ protein content by near infrared hyperspectral imaging,” International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 163–170, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [7]

    Identification of wheat classes at different moisture levels using near-infrared hyperspectral images of bulk samples,

    S. Mahesh, D. Jayas, J. Paliwal, and N. White, “Identification of wheat classes at different moisture levels using near-infrared hyperspectral images of bulk samples,” Sensing and instrumentation for food quality and safety, vol. 5, pp. 1–9, 2011

    work page 2011

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Detection of sprout damage in wheat kernels using nir hyperspectral imaging,

    J. G. Barbedo, E. M. Guarienti, and C. S. Tibola, “Detection of sprout damage in wheat kernels using nir hyperspectral imaging,” Biosystems Engineering, vol. 175, pp. 124–132, 2018

    2018

  2. [9]

    Compar- ison of vis-nir and swir hyperspectral imaging for the non-destructive detection of don levels in fusarium head blight wheat kernels and wheat flour,

    K. Liang, J. Huang, R. He, Q. Wang, Y . Chai, and M. Shen, “Compar- ison of vis-nir and swir hyperspectral imaging for the non-destructive detection of don levels in fusarium head blight wheat kernels and wheat flour,” Infrared Physics & Technology , vol. 106, p. 103281, 2020

    2020

  3. [10]

    Classification of cereal flour species using raman spectroscopy in combination with spectra quality control and multivariate statistical analysis,

    J. Kniese, A. M. Race, and H. Schmidt, “Classification of cereal flour species using raman spectroscopy in combination with spectra quality control and multivariate statistical analysis,” Journal of Cereal Science , vol. 101, p. 103299, 2021

    2021

  4. [11]

    Detection of sprouted wheat kernels using soft x-ray image analysis,

    S. Neethirajan, D. S. Jayas, and N. White, “Detection of sprouted wheat kernels using soft x-ray image analysis,” Journal of Food Engineering , vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 509–513, 2007

    2007

  5. [12]

    Rapid classification of wheat grain varieties using hyperspectral imaging and chemometrics,

    Y . Bao, C. Mi, N. Wu, F. Liu, and Y . He, “Rapid classification of wheat grain varieties using hyperspectral imaging and chemometrics,” Applied Sciences, vol. 9, no. 19, p. 4119, 2019

    2019

  6. [13]

    Classification of cereal grains using machine vision: Iv. combined morphology, color, and texture models,

    S. Majumdar and D. S. Jayas, “Classification of cereal grains using machine vision: Iv. combined morphology, color, and texture models,” Transactions of the ASAE , vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1689–1694, 2000

    2000

  7. [14]

    Iden- tification of nine iranian wheat seed varieties by textural analysis with image processing,

    A. Pourreza, H. Pourreza, M.-H. Abbaspour-Fard, and H. Sadrnia, “Iden- tification of nine iranian wheat seed varieties by textural analysis with image processing,” Computers and electronics in agriculture , vol. 83, pp. 102–108, 2012

    2012

  8. [15]

    Hyperspectral imaging–an emerging process analytical tool for food quality and safety control,

    A. A. Gowen, C. P. O’Donnell, P. J. Cullen, G. Downey, and J. M. Frias, “Hyperspectral imaging–an emerging process analytical tool for food quality and safety control,” Trends in food science & technology , vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 590–598, 2007

    2007

  9. [16]

    Single-kernel near-infrared protein prediction and the role of kernel weight in hard red winter wheat,

    T. Bramble, F. E. Dowell, and T. J. Herrman, “Single-kernel near-infrared protein prediction and the role of kernel weight in hard red winter wheat,” Applied Engineering in Agriculture , vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 945–949, 2006. [Online]. Available: https: //app.dimensions.ai/details...

    2006

  10. [17]

    Variety identification of single rice seed using hyperspectral imaging combined with convolutional neural network,

    Z. Qiu, J. Chen, Y . Zhao, S. Zhu, Y . He, and C. Zhang, “Variety identification of single rice seed using hyperspectral imaging combined with convolutional neural network,” Applied Sciences , vol. 8, no. 2, p. 212, 2018

    2018

  11. [18]

    Hyperspectral imaging for accurate determination of rice variety using a deep learning network with multi-feature fusion,

    S. Weng, P. Tang, H. Yuan, B. Guo, S. Yu, L. Huang, and C. Xu, “Hyperspectral imaging for accurate determination of rice variety using a deep learning network with multi-feature fusion,” Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, vol. 234, p. 118237, 2020

    2020

  12. [19]

    A guide to employ hyperspectral imaging for assessing wheat quality at different stages of supply chain in australia: A review,

    P. Karmakar, S. W. Teng, M. Murshed, P. Pang, and C. Van Bui, “A guide to employ hyperspectral imaging for assessing wheat quality at different stages of supply chain in australia: A review,” IEEE Transactions on AgriFood Electronics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 29–40, 2023

    2023

  13. [20]

    Detection of broken kernels content in bulk wheat samples using near-infrared hyperspectral imaging,

    L. Ravikanth, V . Chelladurai, D. S. Jayas, and N. D. White, “Detection of broken kernels content in bulk wheat samples using near-infrared hyperspectral imaging,” Agricultural Research , vol. 5, pp. 285–292, 2016

    2016

  14. [21]

    Determination of damaged wheat kernels with hyperspectral imaging analysis,

    Y . Shao, C. Gao, G. Xuan, X. Gao, Y . Chen, and Z. Hu, “Determination of damaged wheat kernels with hyperspectral imaging analysis,” Inter- national Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering , vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 194–198, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    A laboratory-created dataset with ground truth for hyperspectral unmixing evaluation,

    M. Zhao, J. Chen, and Z. He, “A laboratory-created dataset with ground truth for hyperspectral unmixing evaluation,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 2170–2183, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Recent advances in multi-and hyperspectral image analysis,

    J. Nalepa, “Recent advances in multi-and hyperspectral image analysis,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 18, p. 6002, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Few-shot fine-grained image classification: A comprehensive review,

    J. Ren, C. Li, Y . An, W. Zhang, and C. Sun, “Few-shot fine-grained image classification: A comprehensive review,” AI, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 405–425, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Few- shot hyperspectral image classification based on adaptive subspaces and feature transformation,

    J. Bai, S. Huang, Z. Xiao, X. Li, Y . Zhu, A. C. Regan, and L. Jiao, “Few- shot hyperspectral image classification based on adaptive subspaces and feature transformation,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 60, pp. 1–17, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Diversity with cooperation: Ensemble methods for few-shot classification,

    N. Dvornik, C. Schmid, and J. Mairal, “Diversity with cooperation: Ensemble methods for few-shot classification,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2019, pp. 3723– 3731

    2019

  20. [28]

    Deep metric learning for few- shot image classification: A review of recent developments,

    X. Li, X. Yang, Z. Ma, and J.-H. Xue, “Deep metric learning for few- shot image classification: A review of recent developments,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 138, p. 109381, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Unlocking the capabilities of explainable few-shot learning in remote sensing,

    G. Y . Lee, T. Dam, M. M. Ferdaus, D. P. Poenar, and V . N. Duong, “Unlocking the capabilities of explainable few-shot learning in remote sensing,” Artificial Intelligence Review , vol. 57, no. 7, p. 169, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks,

    C. Finn, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2017, pp. 1126–1135

    2017

  23. [31]

    L. Mathews. (2020) Gains in grains – is australia producing the most profitable quality of wheat? Accessed: 23/10/2024. [Online]. Available: https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/ grdc-update-papers/tab-content/grdc-update-papers/2020/02/ gains-in-grains-is-australia-...

    2020

  24. [32]

    Genetically engineered crops for sustainably enhanced food production systems,

    M. Abdul Aziz, F. Brini, H. Rouached, and K. Masmoudi, “Genetically engineered crops for sustainably enhanced food production systems,” Frontiers in plant science , vol. 13, p. 1027828, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    A closer look at few-shot classification again,

    X. Luo, H. Wu, J. Zhang, L. Gao, J. Xu, and J. Song, “A closer look at few-shot classification again,” in International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 23 103–23 123

    2023

  26. [34]

    Few-shot open-set recognition of hyperspectral images with outlier calibration network,

    D. Pal, V . Bundele, R. Sharma, B. Banerjee, and Y . Jeppu, “Few-shot open-set recognition of hyperspectral images with outlier calibration network,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , 2022, pp. 3801–3810

    2022

  27. [35]

    Fusion of hyperspectral imaging (hsi) and rgb for identification of soy- bean kernel damages using shufflenet with convolutional optimization and cross stage partial architecture,

    L. Zheng, M. Zhao, J. Zhu, L. Huang, J. Zhao, D. Liang, and D. Zhang, “Fusion of hyperspectral imaging (hsi) and rgb for identification of soy- bean kernel damages using shufflenet with convolutional optimization and cross stage partial architecture,” Frontiers in Plant Scienc...

    2023

  28. [36]

    Hypersigma: Hyperspectral intelligence comprehension foundation model,

    D. Wang, M. Hu, Y . Jin, Y . Miao, J. Yang, Y . Xu, X. Qin, J. Ma, L. Sun, C. Li et al. , “Hypersigma: Hyperspectral intelligence comprehension foundation model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11519 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Motion deblurring with real events,

    F. Xu, L. Yu, B. Wang, W. Yang, G.-S. Xia, X. Jia, Z. Qiao, and J. Liu, “Motion deblurring with real events,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 2583–2592

    2021

  30. [38]

    Generalizing from a few examples: A survey on few-shot learning,

    Y . Wang, Q. Yao, J. T. Kwok, and L. M. Ni, “Generalizing from a few examples: A survey on few-shot learning,” ACM computing surveys (csur), vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 1–34, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Learning from few examples: A summary of approaches to few-shot learning,

    A. Parnami and M. Lee, “Learning from few examples: A summary of approaches to few-shot learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.04291 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Metric learning: A survey. foundations and trends® in machine learning 5 (4), 287–364 (2013)

    B. Kulis, “Metric learning: A survey. foundations and trends® in machine learning 5 (4), 287–364 (2013).”

    2013

  33. [41]

    Prototypical networks for few-shot learning,

    J. Snell, K. Swersky, and R. Zemel, “Prototypical networks for few-shot learning,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Squeeze-and-excitation networks,

    J. Hu, L. Shen, and G. Sun, “Squeeze-and-excitation networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 7132–7141

    2018

  35. [43]

    Empirical analysis of squeeze and excitation based densely connected cnn for chilli leaf disease identification,

    V . Naresh, G. Yogeswararao, R. Malmathanraj, P. Palanisamy et al. , “Empirical analysis of squeeze and excitation based densely connected cnn for chilli leaf disease identification,” IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Hyperspectral image classification using an encoder-decoder model with depthwise separable convolution, squeeze and excitation blocks,

    X. T. Nguyen and G. S. Tran, “Hyperspectral image classification using an encoder-decoder model with depthwise separable convolution, squeeze and excitation blocks,” Earth Science Informatics, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 527–538, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Advances in hyperspec- tral image classification methods with small samples: A review,

    X. Wang, J. Liu, W. Chi, W. Wang, and Y . Ni, “Advances in hyperspec- tral image classification methods with small samples: A review,” Remote Sensing, vol. 15, no. 15, p. 3795, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Spectral–spatial residual network for hyperspectral image classification: A 3-d deep learning framework,

    Z. Zhong, J. Li, Z. Luo, and M. Chapman, “Spectral–spatial residual network for hyperspectral image classification: A 3-d deep learning framework,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 847–858, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    A improved pooling method for convolutional neural networks,

    L. Zhao and Z. Zhang, “A improved pooling method for convolutional neural networks,” Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 1589, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Specim. specim fx17,,

    “Specim. specim fx17,,” https://www.specim.fi/products/specim-fx17

  41. [49]

    Improving deep learning on hyperspectral images of grain by incorporating domain knowledge from chemometrics,

    O.-C. G. Engstrøm, E. S. Dreier, B. M. Jespersen, and K. S. Ped- ersen, “Improving deep learning on hyperspectral images of grain by incorporating domain knowledge from chemometrics,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 485–494

    2023

  42. [50]

    Visualizing data using t-sne

    L. Van der Maaten and G. Hinton, “Visualizing data using t-sne.” Journal of machine learning research , vol. 9, no. 11, 2008

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.