Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Few-shot Unknown Class Discovery of Hyperspectral Images with Prototype Learning and Clustering

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that hyperspectral pixels from classes never seen in training can be not only rejected but sorted into distinct new classes using a class-anchor classifier plus prototype clustering, with only 1 or 5 labeled pixels per kno

desk verdict The method is a sensible integration of existing building blocks, but the headline SOTA claim is undercut by a training protocol that lets the model see the same unknown classes it is later asked to 'discover.' read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18075 v1 pith:U3IMJFYZ submitted 2025-08-25 cs.CV

Chun Liu , Chen Zhang , Zhuo Li , Zheng Li , Wei Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords hyperspectralimageclassificationfew-shotlearningopen-setrecognitionunknownclassdiscoveryprototypedeepclusteringanchorremotesensing
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

This paper is trying to establish that open-set few-shot hyperspectral image classification can go one step further than rejecting unknown pixels: the model can also discover what those unknown classes are. The proposed pipeline has two stages. First, a class-anchor classifier expands the logit space with one extra dimension for an 'unknown class' anchor, separating known from unknown pixels. Second, a prototype-learning module initializes many trainable prototypes, clusters them into groups via similarity and Louvain clustering, and assigns rejected unknown pixels to the resulting groups. On four benchmark HSI datasets under 1-shot and 5-shot settings, the paper reports that this two-stage design beats prior open-set HSI methods on most metrics, with the largest reported gain on WHU-Hi-HanChuan at 5-shot (89.41% all-class accuracy). The broader point: with only a few labeled examples per known land-cover class, a model can both classify known classes and turn unlabeled unknown pixels into newly named classes, which matters for mapping new land cover over time.

What carries the argument

Class anchors and trainable prototype groups. A=(phi*e1, ..., phi*eN) defines N one-hot anchors; sample embeddings are compared to each anchor by Euclidean distance, and the N-th anchor is the rejection region for unknown classes. Discovery uses w trainable prototypes (w greater than true class count), with sample-to-prototype probabilities computed by a softmax over dot products, Jaccard similarity between prototype sample sets, Louvain clustering to form prototype groups, and Hungarian matching to map known prototype groups to real labels. The combination carries the argument: anchors provide the open-set separation, prototype groups provide the unknown-class taxonomy.

What would settle it

Train the model with one set of unknown classes in the episodic query sets, then test it with a disjoint set of unknown classes from the same or another HSI scene. If unknown ACC and the discovered cluster count collapse to chance-level or become unstable, the rejection/discovery depends on having seen the test unknowns in training rather than on a generic unknown representation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that unknown-class discovery in hyperspectral images is achievable in the few-shot regime by combining a class-anchor-based open-set classifier with a dual-level prototype contrastive clustering module. The class anchors are one-hot vectors scaled by a parameter phi; the first N-1 anchors represent known classes and the N-th anchor represents all unknown classes. Training pushes embedded pixels toward their true anchor and away from others via losses Losc and Lca. The discovery stage then uses a large number of trainable prototypes, positive pairs built from weak and strong augmentations, prototype-similarity and prototype-group-similarity losses, a regularizatio

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single unknown-class anchor in logit space can cleanly separate every unseen hyperspectral class from the known classes; if an unseen class is not captured by that one vector, rejected pixels will be contaminated and the discovered clusters will merge or split the true classes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Unknown classes can be recovered as distinct named clusters without any labels for them, given only 1 or 5 labeled pixels per known class.
  • The number of unknown classes is estimated from the prototype-group structure rather than assumed in advance (e.g., 5-shot estimates on IP, PU, SA, and WHU-Hi-HanChuan are close to true class counts).
  • The ablation study implies each loss term is load-bearing; removing the open-set classification loss or class anchor loss hurts closed/open accuracy and AUROC the most.
  • Excess prototypes hurt: performance degrades when the number of trainable prototypes is far above the true class count, so the method has a usable operating range.
  • In applications, the output is a land-cover map where rejected pixels are split into meaningful new classes, not just colored as 'unknown'.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The unknown anchor is a single vector; the paper does not analyze when one vector can separate heterogeneous unseen classes. A natural extension is to learn multiple unknown anchors or add per-class unknown uncertainty.
  • In the experiments, unknown query samples used in training are drawn from the same class pool as test unknowns. Whether the discovery generalizes to truly novel classes that never appear in episodic training remains an open test.
  • The prototype-count sensitivity suggests a practical calibration rule could be derived: set the number of prototypes relative to expected diversity rather than fixing it per dataset.
  • Because the method labels unknown classes only relative to prototype groups, a downstream human-interpretable naming step (e.g., spectral signatures per group) would make the discovered classes actionable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a few-shot method for hyperspectral image classification in which the query set may contain pixels from classes not represented in the labeled support set. The method has two main components: (i) a class-anchor classifier with an extra anchor for all unknown classes, trained with pseudo-labeled unknown samples, and (ii) a set of trainable prototypes with contrastive losses and Jaccard/Louvain clustering, used to split rejected unknown samples into discovered classes. Experiments are reported on Indian Pines, Pavia University, Salinas, and WHU-Hi-HanChuan under 1-shot and 5-shot settings, with Known ACC, Unknown ACC, ALL ACC, ablations, and hyperparameter analyses. The code is publicly available.

Significance. Extending open-set hyperspectral classification from simple unknown rejection to unknown-class discovery is a timely and useful goal, and the proposed combination of an open-set logit anchor with prototype-level clustering is reasonable. The release of code is a positive aspect. If the reported results survive a properly specified and fair evaluation, the method would be a useful baseline for few-shot HSI unknown-class discovery. However, the current evidence is not sufficient: the training protocol appears to involve the same unknown classes used in the final evaluation, the comparison with baselines has at least one explicit asymmetry, and no uncertainty quantification is provided. These issues affect the central claim of state-of-the-art performance.

major comments (5)
  1. [III-B, II-D, III-A] Training/evaluation protocol is under-specified and appears to leak the unknown classes into training. Section III-B states that 'k+d samples per class for known classes and d samples per class for unknown classes are randomly selected to form a task in each episode,' and Section II-D states that 'a pseudo-label is used for the samples from all the unknown classes during training.' Section III-A fixes a single known/unknown class partition and uses the same unknown classes in training and testing; no class-disjoint or pixel-disjoint split is described. Thus the model is trained with coarse labels on the very unknown classes it is later reported to 'discover.' Unknown ACC then measures recognition of previously trained classes, not discovery of novel classes. If the intended setting is novel category discovery, the protocol should be stated explicitly and baselines should be trained under
  2. [III-C, Table II] The text claims a gain of '11% in terms of known ACC on WHU-Hi-HanChuan' under the 5-shot setup. Table II lists the proposed method's Known ACC as 88.98; the best baseline is SSMLP-RPL at 85.46, a difference of 3.52 percentage points, while EVML is 71.07. No baseline value in the table yields an 11-point gap. This specific claim is unsupported by the reported numbers. The other percentage gains in the same paragraph should be recomputed consistently with Table II.
  3. [III-B, Table II] No uncertainty quantification is provided. The paper reports a single accuracy value per setting. Episodic task sampling, random augmentations, prototype initialization/clustering, and Louvain clustering are stochastic, so small differences (e.g., 1.9% Known ACC on SA, 3% ALL ACC on PU) may be within natural variability. The authors should report mean and standard deviation over multiple random seeds or task sets, and ideally a significance test, before claiming improvements over the best baselines.
  4. [III-C] The comparison with baselines is asymmetric. For the baselines, k-means is applied with the true number of unknown classes: the paper states that 'we do the comparison under the assumption that the aforementioned methods are aware of the number of unknown classes.' For the proposed method, the number of classes is estimated via prototype clustering (Table IV). This gives the baselines an oracle advantage in the clustering stage. A fair comparison should either provide the true unknown-class count to the proposed method as well, or evaluate all methods under an estimation setting. In addition, the manuscript does not specify whether the baselines were retrained under the same episodic unknown-in-query protocol; if not, the comparison conflates method quality with protocol differences.
  5. [Table IV, Section III-B] The metric computation with mismatched class counts is not explained. Table IV reports predicted numbers of classes that often differ from the true numbers (e.g., PU 1-shot: 15 predicted vs 9 true; IP: 17 vs 16). Yet Table II reports Unknown ACC and ALL ACC computed with Hungarian matching. Hungarian assignment requires an explicit rule when the numbers of true and predicted classes differ; the paper does not state how over-segmented or under-segmented clusters are matched and scored. Without this, the reported accuracies are not reproducible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (6)] The summation index in the class-anchor loss is ambiguous: the sum is written over 'j != i' with i a sample index, while d_j appear to be distances to class anchors. The sum should be indexed over anchors, not samples.
  2. [Ref. [36]] The Louvain clustering algorithm is cited as [36], but reference [36] is the MAML paper (Finn et al.). A proper reference for Louvain clustering (e.g., Blondel et al., 2008) is missing.
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical errors: 'discoverying,' 'unknow,' 'traing,' 'evluation,' 'ground-turth,' 'ground reality map,' and 'MORAN' for 'MORGAN.' The manuscript needs careful proofreading.
  4. [Abstract / Section IV] The abstract says four benchmark HSI datasets, while Section IV says 'Based on three HSI datasets.' Table IV also says 'across three datasets' but lists four datasets. Please correct the inconsistency.
  5. [Algorithm 1 / III-B] The pre-training set Dpre used in Algorithm 1 is not defined in the experimental setup. Section III-B mentions data augmentation for the pre-training set but does not specify its composition, size, or split, which affects reproducibility.
  6. [Section III-D / Fig. 10] The t-SNE figure caption is confusing: the labels '(a)-right' and '(a)-left' are not clearly matched to the panels, and the text states which classes are unknown without mapping them to the colors in the figure. Please clarify.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Unknown-class discovery is partly circular because the model trains on unlabeled samples from the same unknown classes it is later evaluated on, and the reported Unknown ACC is a transductive fit rather than a prediction on unseen classes.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-B (Implementation Details) and Section II-D (Class Anchor based Open-set Classification); Algorithm 3]
    "In the training phase, k+d samples per class for known classes and d samples per class for unknown classes are randomly selected to form a task in each episode. Among these selected samples, k samples per class from known classes will form the support set, while all the rest of samples from known and unknown classes will form the query set. ... a pseudo-label is used for the samples from all the unknown classes during training."

    The open-set anchor and the prototype-group structure are fitted on unlabeled samples drawn from the dataset's fixed unknown classes (Section III-A fixes the known/unknown partition once). At test time, Algorithm 3 classifies a sample as unknown and assigns it to 'the prototype group representing unknown classes' — a group learned from those same classes. Unknown ACC is then computed by Hungarian matching on these same classes. Thus the reported 'discovery' is a transductive fit to the evaluation classes, not a prediction for classes never encountered in training. The comparison to baselines that are not given unknown-class training samples is consequently forced rather than predictive.

full rationale

The paper's losses are standard and no equation-level circularity exists in the derivation of Losc, Lca, Lps, Lpgs, Lreg, or Lkcd. However, the evaluation protocol creates a circularity in the central claim. Section III-B explicitly states that 'd samples per class for unknown classes are randomly selected to form a task in each episode,' and Section II-D states that 'a pseudo-label is used for the samples from all the unknown classes during training.' The dataset descriptions (Section III-A) fix a single known/unknown class partition and no disjoint or held-out unknown-class split is described. Consequently, the unknown classes whose samples train the unknown anchor and the prototype clusters are the same classes used to compute the Unknown ACC at test time. The model is effectively fitted to the structure it is then asked to 'discover.' This makes the reported state-of-the-art unknown-discovery performance partly self-confirming, especially when baselines are not given the same unlabeled unknown-class training data. The known-class accuracy and the anchor-based known classification remain independent and useful, but the flagship unknown-class discovery result is contaminated by the training/evaluation overlap. Therefore the paper is partially circular in its central claim, though not in its internal loss derivations.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several hand-chosen hyperparameters (prototype count w, anchor scale phi, loss weight gamma), a training protocol that uses coarse labels for unknown-class samples, and the heuristic that Louvain clustering of prototype assignment overlap yields the true class structure. These are not derived from theory and are tuned on the target datasets.

free parameters (6)
  • Number of prototypes w = 35 (IP/SA), 25 (PU), 40 (HanChuan)
    Chosen per dataset by hand as significantly larger than the number of classes; sensitivity shown only on IP in Fig. 11(a).
  • Anchor scaling phi = 10
    Tuned via Fig. 11(b); optimum at phi=10 and gamma=0.8.
  • Anchor loss weight gamma = 0.8
    Tuned via Fig. 11(b).
  • Temperature tau = 0.1
    Fixed; standard in contrastive learning.
  • Number of top prototypes per sample = 3
    Used for Jaccard similarity matrix in Eq. (14); no ablation shown.
  • Number of unknown-class samples per episode = d = 3k with k = 1 or 5
    Experimental protocol; the training set includes labeled unknown-class samples used only with the coarse 'unknown' pseudo-label.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Unknown classes in the test set follow the same distributions as unknown-class samples used during training with a coarse pseudo-label
    The method trains on query samples from the same dataset's unknown classes, so 'discovery' is of classes whose samples have already been seen at training time; see Section III-B.
  • domain assumption A single class anchor can represent all unknown classes for open-set rejection
    Section II-D introduces one extra anchor for all unknown classes; if unseen classes are heterogeneous, rejection accuracy suffers.
  • ad hoc to paper Louvain clustering on prototype Jaccard similarity yields groups that correspond to true object classes
    Section II-E, Eq. (14); the number of groups is an output of the graph clustering algorithm, not a learned quantity with theoretical grounding.
  • domain assumption Softmax over prototype dot products is a valid measure of class membership
    Eq. (8); relies on the feature space being separable by linear prototypes, which is not proven for HSI features.
  • domain assumption Episodic meta-learning on one dataset transfers to the target evaluation on the same dataset
    Standard in this literature but under-specified; no cross-dataset transfer is demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Few-shot Unknown Class Discovery of Hyperspectral Images with Prototype Learning and Clustering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U3IMJFYZ

@misc{pith2026250818075,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Few-shot Unknown Class Discovery of Hyperspectral Images with Prototype Learning and Clustering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U3IMJFYZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18075}
}
read the original abstract

Open-set few-shot hyperspectral image (HSI) classification aims to classify image pixels by using few labeled pixels per class, where the pixels to be classified may be not all from the classes that have been seen. To address the open-set HSI classification challenge, current methods focus mainly on distinguishing the unknown class samples from the known class samples and rejecting them to increase the accuracy of identifying known class samples. They fails to further identify or discovery the unknow classes among the samples. This paper proposes a prototype learning and clustering method for discoverying unknown classes in HSIs under the few-shot environment. Using few labeled samples, it strives to develop the ability of infering the prototypes of unknown classes while distinguishing unknown classes from known classes. Once the unknown class samples are rejected by the learned known class classifier, the proposed method can further cluster the unknown class samples into different classes according to their distance to the inferred unknown class prototypes. Compared to existing state-of-the-art methods, extensive experiments on four benchmark HSI datasets demonstrate that our proposed method exhibits competitive performance in open-set few-shot HSI classification tasks. All the codes are available at \href{https://github.com/KOBEN-ff/OpenFUCD-main} {https://github.com/KOBEN-ff/OpenFUCD-main}

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [36]

    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

  2. [37]

    Deep few-shot learning for hyperspectral image classification,

    B. Liu, X. Yu, A. Yu, P. Zhang, G. Wan, and R. Wang, “Deep few-shot learning for hyperspectral image classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 2290–2304, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [1]

    Deep learning for hyperspectral image classification: An overview,

    S. Li, W. Song, L. Fang, Y . Chen, P. Ghamisi, and J. A. Benediktsson, “Deep learning for hyperspectral image classification: An overview,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 6690–6709, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [2]

    Deep learning for remote sensing data: A technical tutorial on the state of the art,

    L. Zhang, L. Zhang, and B. Du, “Deep learning for remote sensing data: A technical tutorial on the state of the art,” IEEE Geoscience and remote sensing magazine, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 22–40, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [3]

    Deep learning in remote sensing: A comprehensive review and list of resources,

    X. X. Zhu, D. Tuia, L. Mou, G.-S. Xia, L. Zhang, F. Xu, and F. Fraun- dorfer, “Deep learning in remote sensing: A comprehensive review and list of resources,” IEEE geoscience and remote sensing magazine, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 8–36, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [4]

    Principal component analysis for hyper- spectral image classification,

    C. Rodarmel and J. Shan, “Principal component analysis for hyper- spectral image classification,” Surveying and Land Information Science , vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 115–122, 2002

    work page 2002

  7. [5]

    Hybridsn: Exploring 3-d–2-d cnn feature hierarchy for hyperspectral image classi- fication,

    S. K. Roy, G. Krishna, S. R. Dubey, and B. B. Chaudhuri, “Hybridsn: Exploring 3-d–2-d cnn feature hierarchy for hyperspectral image classi- fication,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 277–281, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [6]

    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

    work page 2017

Show all 44 references
  1. [7]

    Few-shot open- set recognition using meta-learning,

    B. Liu, H. Kang, H. Li, G. Hua, and N. Vasconcelos, “Few-shot open- set recognition using meta-learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2020, pp. 8798–8807

    2020

  2. [8]

    Random forest classifiers for hyperspectral data,

    S. R. Joelsson, J. A. Benediktsson, and J. R. Sveinsson, “Random forest classifiers for hyperspectral data,” in Proceedings. 2005 IEEE Interna- tional Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2005. IGARSS’05. , vol. 1. IEEE, 2005, pp. 4–pp

    2005

  3. [9]

    K-nearest neighbor,

    L. E. Peterson, “K-nearest neighbor,” Scholarpedia, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 1883, 2009

    2009

  4. [10]

    Classification of hyperspectral remote sensing images with support vector machines,

    F. Melgani and L. Bruzzone, “Classification of hyperspectral remote sensing images with support vector machines,” IEEE Transactions on geoscience and remote sensing , vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 1778–1790, 2004

    2004

  5. [11]

    Hyperspectral image classification powered by khatri-rao decomposition-based multinomial logistic regression,

    X. Wang, “Hyperspectral image classification powered by khatri-rao decomposition-based multinomial logistic regression,” IEEE Transac- tions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–15, 2022

    2022

  6. [12]

    Linear versus nonlinear pca for the classification of hyperspectral data based on the extended morphological profiles,

    G. Licciardi, P. R. Marpu, J. Chanussot, and J. A. Benediktsson, “Linear versus nonlinear pca for the classification of hyperspectral data based on the extended morphological profiles,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 447–451, 2011

    2011

  7. [13]

    Hyperspectral remote sensing image classifica- tion based on combined svm and lda,

    C. Zhang and Y . Zheng, “Hyperspectral remote sensing image classifica- tion based on combined svm and lda,” in Multispectral, Hyperspectral, and Ultraspectral Remote Sensing Technology, Techniques and Applica- tions V, vol. 9263. SPIE, 2014, pp. 462–468

    2014

  8. [14]

    Spn: Stable prototypical network for few-shot learning-based hyperspectral image classification,

    D. Pal, V . Bundele, B. Banerjee, and Y . Jeppu, “Spn: Stable prototypical network for few-shot learning-based hyperspectral image classification,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 19, pp. 1–5, 2021

    2021

  9. [15]

    Category-specific prototype self-refinement contrastive learning for few-shot hyperspectral image classification,

    Q. Liu, J. Peng, N. Chen, W. Sun, Y . Ning, and Q. Du, “Category-specific prototype self-refinement contrastive learning for few-shot hyperspectral image classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2023

    2023

  10. [16]

    Graph meta transfer network for heterogeneous few-shot hyperspectral image classification,

    H. Wang, X. Wang, and Y . Cheng, “Graph meta transfer network for heterogeneous few-shot hyperspectral image classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–12, 2023

    2023

  11. [17]

    S3net: Spectral–spatial siamese network for few-shot hyperspectral image classification,

    Z. Xue, Y . Zhou, and P. Du, “S3net: Spectral–spatial siamese network for few-shot hyperspectral image classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–19, 2022

    2022

  12. [18]

    A spatial–spectral prototypical network for hyperspectral remote sensing image,

    H. Tang, Y . Li, X. Han, Q. Huang, and W. Xie, “A spatial–spectral prototypical network for hyperspectral remote sensing image,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 167–171, 2019

    2019

  13. [19]

    Hyperspectral image classification based on two-phase relation learning network,

    X. Ma, S. Ji, J. Wang, J. Geng, and H. Wang, “Hyperspectral image classification based on two-phase relation learning network,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 10 398–10 409, 2019

    2019

  14. [20]

    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

  15. [21]

    Probability models for open set recognition,

    W. J. Scheirer, L. P. Jain, and T. E. Boult, “Probability models for open set recognition,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 2317–2324, 2014

    2014

  16. [22]

    The extreme value machine,

    E. M. Rudd, L. P. Jain, W. J. Scheirer, and T. E. Boult, “The extreme value machine,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 762–768, 2017

    2017

  17. [23]

    Spectral-spatial latent reconstruction for open-set hyperspectral image classification,

    J. Yue, L. Fang, and M. He, “Spectral-spatial latent reconstruction for open-set hyperspectral image classification,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 31, pp. 5227–5241, 2022

    2022

  18. [24]

    Few-shot hyperspectral image classi- fication with unknown classes using multitask deep learning,

    S. Liu, Q. Shi, and L. Zhang, “Few-shot hyperspectral image classi- fication with unknown classes using multitask deep learning,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 5085–5102, 2020

    2020

  19. [25]

    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

  20. [26]

    P-odn: Prototype-based open deep network for open set recognition,

    Y . Shu, Y . Shi, Y . Wang, T. Huang, and Y . Tian, “P-odn: Prototype-based open deep network for open set recognition,” Scientific reports, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 7146, 2020

    2020

  21. [27]

    Spectral-spatial mlp- like network with reciprocal points learning for open-set hyperspectral image classification,

    Y . Sun, B. Liu, R. Wang, P. Zhang, and M. Dai, “Spectral-spatial mlp- like network with reciprocal points learning for open-set hyperspectral image classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2023. 13

    2023

  22. [28]

    Learning to discover novel visual categories via deep transfer clustering,

    K. Han, A. Vedaldi, and A. Zisserman, “Learning to discover novel visual categories via deep transfer clustering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2019, pp. 8401–8409

    2019

  23. [29]

    Autonovel: Automatically discovering and learning novel visual cat- egories,

    K. Han, S.-A. Rebuffi, S. Ehrhardt, A. Vedaldi, and A. Zisserman, “Autonovel: Automatically discovering and learning novel visual cat- egories,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 6767–6781, 2021

    2021

  24. [30]

    Learning a neural-network-based repre- sentation for open set recognition,

    M. Hassen and P. K. Chan, “Learning a neural-network-based repre- sentation for open set recognition,” in Proceedings of the 2020 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining . SIAM, 2020, pp. 154–162

    2020

  25. [31]

    Open-world semi-supervised learning,

    K. Cao, M. Brbic, and J. Leskovec, “Open-world semi-supervised learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.03526 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Openldn: Learning to discover novel classes for open-world semi- supervised learning,

    M. N. Rizve, N. Kardan, S. Khan, F. Shahbaz Khan, and M. Shah, “Openldn: Learning to discover novel classes for open-world semi- supervised learning,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2022, pp. 382–401

    2022

  27. [33]

    Generalized category discovery,

    S. Vaze, K. Han, A. Vedaldi, and A. Zisserman, “Generalized category discovery,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 7492–7501

    2022

  28. [34]

    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

  29. [35]

    Learning to compare: Relation network for few-shot learning,

    F. Sung, Y . Yang, L. Zhang, T. Xiang, P. H. Torr, and T. M. Hospedales, “Learning to compare: Relation network for few-shot learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 1199–1208

    2018

  30. [38]

    The hungarian method for the assignment problem,

    H. W. Kuhn, “The hungarian method for the assignment problem,” Naval research logistics quarterly, vol. 2, no. 1-2, pp. 83–97, 1955

    1955

  31. [39]

    Zhong, X

    Y . Zhong, X. Hu, C. Luo, X. Wang, J. Zhao, and L. Zhang, “Whu-hi: Uav-borne hyperspectral with high spatial resolution (h2) benchmark datasets and classifier for precise crop identification based on deep convolutional neural network with crf,” Remote Sensing of Environment, v...

    2020

  32. [40]

    Hyperspectral remote sensing with micro-uavs: from observation and processing to application,

    Y . Zhong, X. Wang, Y . Xu, S. Wang, T. Jia, X. Hu, J. Zhao, L. Wei, and L. Zhang, “Hyperspectral remote sensing with micro-uavs: from observation and processing to application,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Mag., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 46–62, Dec 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Deep feature extraction and classification of hyperspectral images based on convolutional neural networks,

    Y . Chen, H. Jiang, C. Li, X. Jia, and P. Ghamisi, “Deep feature extraction and classification of hyperspectral images based on convolutional neural networks,” IEEE transactions on geoscience and remote sensing, vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 6232–6251, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    Going deeper with contextual cnn for hyper- spectral image classification,

    H. Lee and H. Kwon, “Going deeper with contextual cnn for hyper- spectral image classification,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 4843–4855, 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    Morgan: Meta-learning- based few-shot open-set recognition via generative adversarial network,

    D. Pal, S. Bose, B. Banerjee, and Y . Jeppu, “Morgan: Meta-learning- based few-shot open-set recognition via generative adversarial network,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 6295–6304

    2023

  36. [44]

    Extreme value meta-learning for few-shot open-set recognition of hyperspectral im- ages,

    D. Pal, S. Bose, J. Banerjee, Biplab, and Yogananda, “Extreme value meta-learning for few-shot open-set recognition of hyperspectral im- ages,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–16, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.