Optimal Hyperspectral Undersampling Strategy for Satellite Imaging

Elena V. Lyapuntsova; Maria S. Varetsa; Natalia A. Ibragimova; Oleg Y. Rogov; Vita V. Vlasova; Vladimir G. Kuzmin

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Optimal Hyperspectral Undersampling Strategy for Satellite Imaging

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read IWGS, an iterative wavelet-domain gradient sampler, selects spectral bands that keep hyperspectral classification accuracy high (up to 97.8% on Indian Pines) while reducing computational cost.

desk verdict Internally inconsistent to the point of being unassessable: the method name, dataset, and headline numbers all disagree, and no baseline or code is provided. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19279 v1 pith:ZCZIRJL6 submitted 2025-04-27 cs.CV

Vita V. Vlasova , Vladimir G. Kuzmin , Maria S. Varetsa , Natalia A. Ibragimova , Oleg Y. Rogov , Elena V. Lyapuntsova This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords hyperspectralimageclassificationbandselectionwavelettransformiterativegradientsamplingundersamplingsatelliteimagingedgecomputingIndianPines

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 introduces IWGS, an iterative band-selection algorithm that picks spectral bands one at a time by measuring the gradient of the classifier's loss in a wavelet-transformed domain. It claims this produces state-of-the-art hyperspectral image classification accuracy while cutting computational cost, reporting up to 97.8% overall accuracy on Indian Pines and 97.6% on Houston 2013. The motivation is practical: satellites and edge devices cannot process hundreds of bands, and a task-specific subset keeps accuracy high with less memory and latency. The paper frames IWGS as an undersampling strategy that preserves informative spectral structure and scales to resource-constrained deployment.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the gradient of the classification loss with respect to a binary band-selection vector $w \in \{0,1\}^B$, evaluated through a wavelet transform and its inverse. At each iteration the method computes the wavelet representation $X_W = \mathcal{W}(X)$, reconstructs the masked cube $\hat{X}_w = \mathcal{W}^{-1}(X_W \cdot w)$, obtains predictions from the classifier $S$, and selects the band with the largest $\left|\partial L/\partial w_j\right|$. The wavelet transform, a multi-resolution decomposition that separates spectral detail at different scales, is doing the work of exposing localized, sparse structure; the gradient is doing the work of making the choice task-specific rather than purely statistical.

What would settle it

Run the published Algorithm 1 on Indian Pines with a fixed classifier and a stated gradient estimator, and compare the resulting accuracy and selected bands against random band selection with the same classifier. If random bands match or beat IWGS, or if the reported 97.8% accuracy cannot be reproduced, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a greedy, loss-driven band-selection rule operating in the wavelet domain outperforms existing band selection and classification methods on standard hyperspectral benchmarks. IWGS starts with the central band set to one, then, for each of $N_s$ steps, transforms the hyperspectral cube into the wavelet domain, masks it with the current binary selection vector, reconstructs the input, classifies, computes the loss, and takes the gradient of the loss with respect to the selection vector. The next band chosen is the unselected one with the largest absolute gradient component, so each addition is the band that most reduces the current classification loss. The paper reports that this strategy maintains or improves accuracy while greatly reducing the number of bands, and that the resulting pipeline survives PGD adversarial perturbations combined with atmospheric noise, with patch size 5 identified as the best accuracy/efficiency trade-off.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the classifier's loss can be differentiated with respect to a yes/no band-selection mask, even though such a mask has no ordinary derivative and the paper never says how that derivative is approximated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If IWGS works as reported, hyperspectral classifiers can run on a small, task-specific subset of bands, cutting memory and latency enough for onboard satellite processing.
Because selection is driven by the classifier's own loss, the chosen bands are coupled to the downstream model; a different classifier would be expected to select a different subset.
The reported patch-size analysis gives a concrete deployment rule: patch size 5 preserves most of the accuracy (97.10% OA) while reducing compute relative to larger patches.
The perturbation results imply that band selection by wavelet-domain gradients retains enough spectral structure to survive PGD attacks under additive atmospheric noise.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not specify the classifier architecture, the number of selected bands, or the gradient estimator for the binary mask; if the reported numbers only hold for one hidden configuration, the method's generality is untested.
If the gradient rule is the true driver, then swapping the wavelet transform for another sparsifying transform, such as a discrete cosine transform or learned bases, should preserve much of the benefit; a comparison would isolate what wavelets contribute.
The iterative loss-driven selection is a general recipe that could transfer to other high-dimensional sensing tasks, including multispectral imaging, MRI undersampling, and audio spectrograms, wherever a differentiable loss over a binary channel mask can be defined.
The paper's undersampling framing suggests a testable extension: measure how the selected band subset changes as the training set shrinks and whether the accuracy advantage over random band selection grows exactly in the low-label regime it targets.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You asked for a read on arXiv:2504.19279. My take aligns with the desk report, and the stress-test placeholder doesn't change that. This paper is not close to publishable, and I don't think a serious referee should spend time on it in its current form.

The core idea is reasonable: select hyperspectral bands by looking at gradients in a wavelet-transformed domain, doing an iterative greedy search, and wrap it around an efficient CNN/state-space classifier. The components are established, and the self-citation to the MRI undersampling work [25] is legitimate as an inspiration. That's the new part, and it's plausible on its face.

But the paper undermines itself at every load-bearing point. The method is called IWGS in the abstract and Algorithm 1, IGWS in the contributions and most of the experiments, and Section 3.2 describes IGWS as a sample undersampling strategy while Section 3.1 defines IWGS as band selection. Those are not the same thing. Table 3 uses Houston 2013 class names (Healthy grass, Stressed grass, Residential, etc.) while the surrounding text says Indian Pines throughout; the abstract claims 97.8% on Indian Pines, but no OA row in Table 3 shows 97.8% — the closest are 97.99 at P11 and 97.90 Kappa at P5. The text reports P5 OA as 97.60% and P13 OA as 97.86%, but Table 3 shows 97.10% and 97.36% for those same patch sizes. The conclusion claims 97.60% on Houston, which no table supports.

The algorithm itself is underspecified: it computes a gradient of the loss with respect to a binary selection vector w, but binary masks are not differentiable and no relaxation, straight-through estimator, or surrogate is given. Every reported number depends on that unspecified implementation detail. There are no baseline comparisons, no error bars, no code, no ablation of the band-selection mechanism (the experiments are about patch size). These are not minor polish issues; they mean a reader cannot tell what was actually computed or what was actually achieved.

The paper does show some awareness of its limits — the abstract says "for selected classes," and the patch-size sensitivity is at least explored. But the disclaimers don't fix the dataset contradictions or the missing gradient definition.

Bottom line: no one should cite this yet, and I'd desk-reject it. If the authors fix the nomenclature, align text and tables, specify the gradient approximation, add real baselines, and release code, there might be a useful small paper here about wavelet-domain gradient band selection. In its current form, it's a draft, not a submission.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes 'Iterative Wavelet-based Gradient Sampling' (IWGS, also spelled IGWS), a greedy band-selection algorithm that selects hyperspectral bands by descending a classifier loss in the wavelet-transformed domain, and claims that it consistently outperforms state-of-the-art band selection and classification methods in accuracy and computational efficiency. The experimental section presents a patch-size ablation, reporting overall accuracy of up to 97.8% on Indian Pines in the abstract, and includes an adversarial robustness experiment under PGD perturbations with atmospheric noise.

Significance. If the claimed results were reproducible, the method would be of genuine practical interest for onboard or edge hyperspectral classification, since it directly targets the memory and throughput bottlenecks of deep HSI classifiers. The paper makes falsifiable efficiency and accuracy claims, which is a strength in principle. However, the manuscript does not specify the algorithm's central gradient step in a computable way, compares against no external state-of-the-art baseline, and contains numerical and dataset contradictions that prevent verification. The paper ships no code and no machine-checked derivations, so these strengths are not realized in the current form.

major comments (5)

[Section 3.1, Algorithm 1, step 7] The gradient ∂L/∂w_j used to select bands is not defined, because the selection vector w is binary and the reconstruction X̂_w is not differentiable with respect to an element of {0,1}^B; the paper states no relaxation, straight-through estimator, or surrogate gradient. Since every selected band and every reported accuracy depends on this step, the method cannot be reproduced or evaluated as written.
[Sections 4.1–4.2 and Table 3] The central comparison claim is unsupported: the experiments compare the proposed sampling only with 'random undersampling and no sampling' and never report a single run of any state-of-the-art band selection or classification method from the related-work list. The abstract's claim that IWGS 'consistently outperforms state-of-the-art band selection and classification techniques' therefore has no evidential basis in this manuscript.
[Table 3 and Section 4.2] The reported numbers are internally inconsistent: the text states P5 OA = 97.60% while Table 3 gives 97.10%; the text states P13 OA = 97.86% while Table 3 gives 97.36%; and the abstract's headline 97.8% appears in no row. Table 3's class names correspond to Houston 2013, while Table 1, Figure 1, and most of the experiments concern Indian Pines; the conclusion attributes 97.60% to Houston 2013. These contradictions make the experimental results unverifiable.
[Title and Section 3.1] The word 'optimal' in the title and the 'optimal configuration' language in Section 4.2 are not justified: the number of selected bands N_s, the wavelet transform W, the patch size, and the PGD parameters (ε and α) are selected from experimental results rather than derived or optimized with a guarantee. No optimality proof or parameter-free characterization is given.
[Section 1 contribution list vs. Section 3.1] The manuscript describes two incompatible methods under nearly the same name: the contribution bullet introduces 'IGWS' as an undersampling strategy that preserves minority-class samples, whereas the abstract and Section 3.1 define 'IWGS' as a band-selection algorithm; the experiments evaluate neither against an external baseline. It is therefore unclear what exactly was implemented and measured.

minor comments (4)

[Data Availability and Section 4] The dataset description is inconsistent: Section 4 says Indian Pines has 220 bands with 20 removed, while the Data Availability section says 224 bands with 200 retained; Table 1's total of 10,366 labeled samples also does not match the standard Indian Pines count, and no explanation is provided.
[Throughout] The notation switches between IWGS and IGWS inconsistently (for example, the contribution list and Figure 1 caption use IGWS, while Algorithm 1 and the abstract use IWGS); please standardize the name and spelling.
[Table 2] The Kappa coefficients in Table 2 are not tied to a specific dataset or to the PGD attack parameters used; the caption and text should state the exact attack settings, the dataset, and the classifier so that the robustness claim is checkable.
[Section 3.2] The first sentence of Section 3.2 contains the typo 'HSP' where 'HSI' is intended; please correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: IWGS is a self-contained greedy band-selection algorithm; the sole self-citation [25] is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation is Algorithm 1, which explicitly defines IWGS as an iterative gradient-based band selector operating on wavelet coefficients; no step of the derivation reduces to its own inputs. The only self-citation is [25] (Razumov, Rogov, Dylov), cited in the introduction as inspiration for 'iterative undersampling'; because Algorithm 1 is fully specified in the paper and does not rely on [25] for correctness, this citation is minor and not load-bearing. The reported claims of 'optimality' and the best accuracy numbers are selected from the experimental tables rather than derived, and the tables contain internal inconsistencies (e.g., the abstract's 97.8% Indian Pines figure versus Table 3, and the text's 97.60% at P5 versus the table's 97.10%), but these are correctness/reproducibility problems, not circularity: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no equation is equal to an input by construction. The method is evaluated against external benchmark datasets, so the empirical claims are at least in principle falsifiable outside the paper's own fitted values.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an unspecified gradient estimator for a binary mask, an unverified equivalence between wavelet-domain masking and band selection, a noise model adopted without validation, and post hoc selection of the patch size. These are the assumptions a reader must accept to trust the reported accuracies.

free parameters (4)

Number of selected bands Ns
The algorithm requires the number of bands to select, but the paper never states the value used in the reported accuracy numbers.
Patch size (P5) = 5
The paper declares patch size 5 the optimal trade-off based on the experimental table, i.e., chosen post hoc from the data.
Wavelet transform W
The wavelet family, order, and decomposition level are never specified.
PGD attack parameters epsilon and alpha
The adversarial experiments in Table 2 do not report the perturbation bound or step size.

assumptions (3)

ad hoc to paper The loss gradient with respect to the binary selection vector w is defined and can be computed (Algorithm 1, step 7).
Binary variables are non-differentiable; the paper provides no relaxation or estimator, so this assumption is both load-bearing and unsupported.
domain assumption Masking the wavelet-domain cube with the selection vector is equivalent to selecting spectral bands.
No formal argument connects the wavelet-domain mask to the band-selection objective.
domain assumption The robust objective in Eq. (2) models atmospheric noise plus adversarial perturbation as additive bounded terms.
This noise model is introduced and assumed without experimental validation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal Hyperspectral Undersampling Strategy for Satellite Imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZCZIRJL6

@misc{pith2026250419279,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal Hyperspectral Undersampling Strategy for Satellite Imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZCZIRJL6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19279}
}

read the original abstract

Hyperspectral image (HSI) classification presents significant challenges due to the high dimensionality, spectral redundancy, and limited labeled data typically available in real-world applications. To address these issues and optimize classification performance, we propose a novel band selection strategy known as Iterative Wavelet-based Gradient Sampling (IWGS). This method incrementally selects the most informative spectral bands by analyzing gradients within the wavelet-transformed domain, enabling efficient and targeted dimensionality reduction. Unlike traditional selection methods, IWGS leverages the multi-resolution properties of wavelets to better capture subtle spectral variations relevant for classification. The iterative nature of the approach ensures that redundant or noisy bands are systematically excluded while maximizing the retention of discriminative features. We conduct comprehensive experiments on two widely-used benchmark HSI datasets: Houston 2013 and Indian Pines. Results demonstrate that IWGS consistently outperforms state-of-the-art band selection and classification techniques in terms of both accuracy and computational efficiency. These improvements make our method especially suitable for deployment in edge devices or other resource-constrained environments, where memory and processing power are limited. In particular, IWGS achieved an overall accuracy up to 97.8% on Indian Pines for selected classes, confirming its effectiveness and generalizability across different HSI scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19279 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[25]

Optimal mri undersampling patterns for ultimate benefit of medical vision tasks,

A. Razumov, O. Rogov, and D. V. Dylov, “Optimal mri undersampling patterns for ultimate benefit of medical vision tasks,” Magnetic Resonance Imaging , vol. 103, pp. 37–47, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0730725X23001157

work page 2023
[1]

Mixchannel: Advanced augmentation for multispectral satellite images,

S. Illarionova , S. Nesteruk , D. Shadrin, V. Ignatiev , M. Pukalchik , and I. Oseledets, “Mixchannel: Advanced augmentation for multispectral satellite images,” Remote Sensing , vol. 13, no. 11, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/11/2181

work page 2021
[2]

Evaluation of the hyperspectral monitoring method capabilities for forests areas,

M. L. Belov, A. Belov, V. Gorodnichev, S. Alkov, and A. Shkarupilo, “Evaluation of the hyperspectral monitoring method capabilities for forests areas,” in 29th International Symposium on Atmospheric and Ocean Optics: Atmospheric Physics , O. A. Romanovskii, Ed. SPIE, Oct. 2023, p. 128. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.2690227

work page doi:10.1117/12.2690227 2023
[3]

The method of repre- senting grayscale images in pseudo color using equal-contrast color space,

A. M. Potashnikov, I. V. Vlasuyk, V. Ivanchev, and A. V. Balobanov, “The method of repre- senting grayscale images in pseudo color using equal-contrast color space,” in 2020 Systems of Signals Generating and Processing in the Field of on Board Communications , 2020, pp. 1–6

work page 2020
[4]

Video stabilization quality assessment method based on k-means in hsv color space,

O. V. Brednev and A. V. Balobanov, “Video stabilization quality assessment method based on k-means in hsv color space,” in 2025 Systems of Signals Generating and Processing in the Field of on Board Communications , 2025, pp. 1–7

work page 2025
[5]

Evaluation of leaf chlorophyll content from acousto-optic hyperspectral data: A multi-crop study,

A. Zolotukhina, A. Machikhin, A. Guryleva, V. Gresis, A. Kharchenko, K. Dekhkanova, S. Polyakova, D. Fomin, G. Nesterov, and V. Pozhar, “Evaluation of leaf chlorophyll content from acousto-optic hyperspectral data: A multi-crop study,” Remote Sensing, vol. 16, no. 6, p. 1073, Mar. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs16061073

work page doi:10.3390/rs16061073 2024
[6]

Mivar’s approach to detailed description of knowledge for the academic subject “rocket and space manufacturing technolo- gies

T. Guzeva, S. Egorov, K. Smetankin, O. Varlamov, and D. Aladin, “Mivar’s approach to detailed description of knowledge for the academic subject “rocket and space manufacturing technolo- gies”,” Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems , p. 643–650, Nov 2022

work page 2022
[7]

Hyperspectral image super-resolution meets deep learning: A survey and perspective,

X. Wang, Q. Hu, Y. Cheng, and J. Ma, “Hyperspectral image super-resolution meets deep learning: A survey and perspective,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica , vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 1668–1691, 2023

work page 2023

Show all 47 references

[8]

Bands sensitive convolutional network for hyperspec- tral image classification,

L. Ran, Y. Zhang, W. Wei, and T. Yang, “Bands sensitive convolutional network for hyperspec- tral image classification,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet Multimedia Computing and Service , 2016, pp. 268–272. 12

2016
[9]

Ikeuchi, Computer vision: A reference guide

K. Ikeuchi, Computer vision: A reference guide . Springer, 2021

2021
[10]

The role of hyperspectral imaging: A literature review,

M. Mateen, J. Wen, M. A. Akbar et al. , “The role of hyperspectral imaging: A literature review,” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications , vol. 9, no. 8, 2018

2018
[11]

A review on the combination of deep learning techniques with proximal hyperspectral images in agriculture,

J. G. A. Barbedo, “A review on the combination of deep learning techniques with proximal hyperspectral images in agriculture,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , vol. 210, p. 107920, 2023

2023
[12]

Automatic apple recognition based on the fusion of color and 3D feature for robotic fruit picking,

Y. Tao and J. Zhou, “Automatic apple recognition based on the fusion of color and 3D feature for robotic fruit picking,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , vol. 142, pp. 388–396, 2017

2017
[13]

K. P. Vadrevu, T. Le Toan, S. S. Ray, and C. O. Justice, Remote Sensing of Agriculture and Land Cover/Land Use Changes in South and Southeast Asian Countries . Springer, 2022

2022
[14]

Land use and land cover classification with hyper- spectral data: A comprehensive review of methods, challenges and future directions,

M. A. Moharram and D. M. Sundaram, “Land use and land cover classification with hyper- spectral data: A comprehensive review of methods, challenges and future directions,” Neuro- computing, 2023

2023
[15]

Bs-nets: An end-to-end framework for band selection of hyper- spectral image,

Y. Cai, X. Liu, and Z. Cai, “Bs-nets: An end-to-end framework for band selection of hyper- spectral image,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 1969–1984, 2019

1969
[16]

Attend in bands: Hyperspectral band weighting and selection for image classification,

J. Wang, J. Zhou, and W. Huang, “Attend in bands: Hyperspectral band weighting and selection for image classification,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 4712–4727, 2019

2019
[17]

Lidar-guided cross-attention fusion for hyperspectral band selection and image classification,

J. X. Yang, J. Zhou, J. Wang, H. Tian, and A. W. C. Liew, “Lidar-guided cross-attention fusion for hyperspectral band selection and image classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2024

2024
[18]

Hyperspectral band selection: A review,

W. Sun and Q. Du, “Hyperspectral band selection: A review,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 118–139, 2019

2019
[19]

Attention is all you need,

A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

2017
[20]

Transformers in remote sensing: A survey,

A. A. Aleissaee, A. Kumar, R. M. Anwer, S. Khan, H. Cholakkal, G.-S. Xia, and F. S. Khan, “Transformers in remote sensing: A survey,” Remote Sensing, vol. 15, no. 7, p. 1860, 2023

2023
[21]

Spectralformer: Rethinking hyperspectral image classification with transformers,

D. Hong, Z. Han, J. Yao, L. Gao, B. Zhang, A. Plaza, and J. Chanussot, “Spectralformer: Rethinking hyperspectral image classification with transformers,” IEEE Transactions on Geo- science and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–15, 2021. 13

2021
[22]

Hsi-bert: Hyperspectral image classifica- tion using the bidirectional encoder representation from transformers,

J. He, L. Zhao, H. Yang, M. Zhang, and W. Li, “Hsi-bert: Hyperspectral image classifica- tion using the bidirectional encoder representation from transformers,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 165–178, 2019

2019
[23]

Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces,

A. Gu and T. Dao, “Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00752, 2023

2023 arXiv
[24]

Vision mamba: Efficient visual representation learning with bidirectional state space model,

L. Zhu, B. Liao, Q. Zhang, X. Wang, W. Liu, and X. Wang, “Vision mamba: Efficient visual representation learning with bidirectional state space model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09417, 2024

2024 arXiv
[26]

Learning compact and discriminative stacked autoencoder for hyperspectral image classification,

P. Zhou, J. Han, G. Cheng, and B. Zhang, “Learning compact and discriminative stacked autoencoder for hyperspectral image classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Re- mote Sensing, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 4823–4833, 2019

2019
[27]

Convolutional neural networks for hyperspectral image classification,

S. Yu, S. Jia, and C. Xu, “Convolutional neural networks for hyperspectral image classification,” Neurocomputing, vol. 219, pp. 88–98, 2017

2017
[28]

Deep recurrent neural networks for hyperspectral image classification,

L. Mou, P. Ghamisi, and X. X. Zhu, “Deep recurrent neural networks for hyperspectral image classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 3639– 3655, 2017

2017
[29]

Generative adversarial networks for hyperspectral image classification,

L. Zhu, Y. Chen, P. Ghamisi, and J. A. Benediktsson, “Generative adversarial networks for hyperspectral image classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 5046–5063, 2018

2018
[30]

Capsule networks for hyperspectral image classification,

M. E. Paoletti, J. M. Haut, R. Fernandez-Beltran, J. Plaza, A. Plaza, J. Li, and F. Pla, “Capsule networks for hyperspectral image classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 2145–2160, 2018

2018
[31]

Recognition of forest damage from sentinel-2 satellite images using u-net, randomforest and xgboost,

N. Podoprigorova, F. Safonov, S. Podoprigorova, A. Tarasov, and A. Shikhov, “Recognition of forest damage from sentinel-2 satellite images using u-net, randomforest and xgboost,” in 2024 6th International Youth Conference on Radio Electronics, Electrical and Power Engineering ...

2024
[32]

Using neural networks and machine learning methods to detect clearcut regions in sentinel–2 satellite imagery,

A. I. Kanev, E. O. Yurova, M. O. Ponomareva, and T. I. Emelyanova, “Using neural networks and machine learning methods to detect clearcut regions in sentinel–2 satellite imagery,” in2024 Conference of Young Researchers in Electrical and Electronic Engineering (ElCon). IEEE, Ja...

2024
[33]

Identification of logged and windthrow areas from sentinel-2 satellite images using the u-net convolutional neural network and factors affecting its accuracy,

A. I. Kanev, A. V. Tarasov, A. N. Shikhov, N. S. Podoprigorova, and F. A. Safonov, “Identification of logged and windthrow areas from sentinel-2 satellite images using the u-net convolutional neural network and factors affecting its accuracy,” Cosmic Research , vol. 61, no. S1...

2023 doi
[34]

Hyperspectral image classification with deep learning models,

X. Yang, Y. Ye, X. Li, R. Y. Lau, X. Zhang, and X. Huang, “Hyperspectral image classification with deep learning models,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 5408–5423, 2018

2018
[35]

Multi-scale 3d deep convolutional neural network for hyperspec- tral image classification,

M. He, B. Li, and H. Chen, “Multi-scale 3d deep convolutional neural network for hyperspec- tral image classification,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 3904–3908

2017
[36]

Deepvit: Towards deeper vision transformer,

D. Zhou, B. Kang, X. Jin, L. Yang, X. Lian, Z. Jiang, Q. Hou, and J. Feng, “Deepvit: Towards deeper vision transformer,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11886 , 2021

2021 arXiv
[37]

Tokens-to-token vit: Training vision transformers from scratch on imagenet,

L. Yuan, Y. Chen, T. Wang, W. Yu, Y. Shi, Z.-H. Jiang, F. E. Tay, J. Feng, and S. Yan, “Tokens-to-token vit: Training vision transformers from scratch on imagenet,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2021, pp. 558–567

2021
[38]

Levit: a vision transformer in convnet’s clothing for faster inference,

B. Graham, A. El-Nouby, H. Touvron, P. Stock, A. Joulin, H. J´ egou, and M. Douze, “Levit: a vision transformer in convnet’s clothing for faster inference,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2021, pp. 12 259–12 269

2021
[39]

Hyperspectral image transformer classification net- works,

X. Yang, W. Cao, Y. Lu, and Y. Zhou, “Hyperspectral image transformer classification net- works,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–15, 2022

2022
[40]

Multiscale convolutional transformer with center mask pretraining for hyperspectral image classification,

S. Jia and Y. Wang, “Multiscale convolutional transformer with center mask pretraining for hyperspectral image classification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.04771 , 2022

2022 arXiv
[41]

Spectral–spatial feature tokenization transformer for hyperspectral image classification,

L. Sun, G. Zhao, Y. Zheng, and Z. Wu, “Spectral–spatial feature tokenization transformer for hyperspectral image classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–14, 2022

2022
[42]

Hungry hungry hippos: Towards language modeling with state space models,

D. Y. Fu, T. Dao, K. K. Saab, A. W. Thomas, A. Rudra, and C. R´ e, “Hungry hungry hippos: Towards language modeling with state space models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14052 , 2022

2022 arXiv
[43]

Certification of speaker recognition models to additive perturbations,

D. Korzh, E. Karimov, M. Pautov, O. Y. Rogov, and I. Oseledets, “Certification of speaker recognition models to additive perturbations,” Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 39, no. 17, p. 17947–17956, Apr. 2025. [Online]. Available: http://dx.d...

2025 doi
[44]

Noise-robust hyperspectral image classification via multi-scale total variation,

P. Duan, X. Kang, S. Li, and P. Ghamisi, “Noise-robust hyperspectral image classification via multi-scale total variation,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1948–1962, 2019. 15

1948
[45]

Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks,

A. Madry, A. Makelov, L. Schmidt, D. Tsipras, and A. Vladu, “Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.06083

2019 arXiv
[46]

The airborne visible/infrared imaging spectrometer (aviris),

G. Vane, R. O. Green, T. G. Chrien, H. T. Enmark, E. G. Hansen, and W. M. Porter, “The airborne visible/infrared imaging spectrometer (aviris),” Remote Sensing of Environment , vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 127–143, 1993, airbone Imaging Spectrometry. [Online]. Available: https://www.sc...

1993
[47]

Multispec: A freeware multispectral image data analysis system,

L. Biehl and D. Landgrebe, “Multispec: A freeware multispectral image data analysis system,” https://engineering.purdue.edu/∼biehl/MultiSpec/, 1999, accessed: 2025-04-20. 16

1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [25]

Optimal mri undersampling patterns for ultimate benefit of medical vision tasks,

A. Razumov, O. Rogov, and D. V. Dylov, “Optimal mri undersampling patterns for ultimate benefit of medical vision tasks,” Magnetic Resonance Imaging , vol. 103, pp. 37–47, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0730725X23001157

work page 2023

[2] [1]

Mixchannel: Advanced augmentation for multispectral satellite images,

S. Illarionova , S. Nesteruk , D. Shadrin, V. Ignatiev , M. Pukalchik , and I. Oseledets, “Mixchannel: Advanced augmentation for multispectral satellite images,” Remote Sensing , vol. 13, no. 11, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/11/2181

work page 2021

[3] [2]

Evaluation of the hyperspectral monitoring method capabilities for forests areas,

M. L. Belov, A. Belov, V. Gorodnichev, S. Alkov, and A. Shkarupilo, “Evaluation of the hyperspectral monitoring method capabilities for forests areas,” in 29th International Symposium on Atmospheric and Ocean Optics: Atmospheric Physics , O. A. Romanovskii, Ed. SPIE, Oct. 2023, p. 128. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.2690227

work page doi:10.1117/12.2690227 2023

[4] [3]

The method of repre- senting grayscale images in pseudo color using equal-contrast color space,

A. M. Potashnikov, I. V. Vlasuyk, V. Ivanchev, and A. V. Balobanov, “The method of repre- senting grayscale images in pseudo color using equal-contrast color space,” in 2020 Systems of Signals Generating and Processing in the Field of on Board Communications , 2020, pp. 1–6

work page 2020

[5] [4]

Video stabilization quality assessment method based on k-means in hsv color space,

O. V. Brednev and A. V. Balobanov, “Video stabilization quality assessment method based on k-means in hsv color space,” in 2025 Systems of Signals Generating and Processing in the Field of on Board Communications , 2025, pp. 1–7

work page 2025

[6] [5]

Evaluation of leaf chlorophyll content from acousto-optic hyperspectral data: A multi-crop study,

A. Zolotukhina, A. Machikhin, A. Guryleva, V. Gresis, A. Kharchenko, K. Dekhkanova, S. Polyakova, D. Fomin, G. Nesterov, and V. Pozhar, “Evaluation of leaf chlorophyll content from acousto-optic hyperspectral data: A multi-crop study,” Remote Sensing, vol. 16, no. 6, p. 1073, Mar. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs16061073

work page doi:10.3390/rs16061073 2024

[7] [6]

Mivar’s approach to detailed description of knowledge for the academic subject “rocket and space manufacturing technolo- gies

T. Guzeva, S. Egorov, K. Smetankin, O. Varlamov, and D. Aladin, “Mivar’s approach to detailed description of knowledge for the academic subject “rocket and space manufacturing technolo- gies”,” Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems , p. 643–650, Nov 2022

work page 2022

[8] [7]

Hyperspectral image super-resolution meets deep learning: A survey and perspective,

X. Wang, Q. Hu, Y. Cheng, and J. Ma, “Hyperspectral image super-resolution meets deep learning: A survey and perspective,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica , vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 1668–1691, 2023

work page 2023