2020
DOI: 10.1109/tgrs.2019.2936609
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Graph and Total Variation Regularized Low-Rank Representation for Hyperspectral Anomaly Detection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
44
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 134 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
44
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In most detection tasks, good performance always closely related to good semantic features, while combination of features always more discriminative than individual ones [17,18]. The pairwise graph constraint is introduced in [19] to ensure that the local intrinsic geometric structure of latent space be consistant with that in the original domain.…”
Section: Supergraphmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In most detection tasks, good performance always closely related to good semantic features, while combination of features always more discriminative than individual ones [17,18]. The pairwise graph constraint is introduced in [19] to ensure that the local intrinsic geometric structure of latent space be consistant with that in the original domain.…”
Section: Supergraphmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…where σ is a scalar parameter, and N k (x i ) is the set of knearest neighbors of x i . L = D − W is the graph Laplacian matrix, wherein degree matrix D is a diagonal matrix, and d ii is the summation of the i-th row of the symmetric matrix W. The graph regularization encourages samples within the same semantic region to share similar representation, and vise versa [17,20]. Whereas, there are two major disadvantages need addressing: 1) neither AE nor graph regularization takes the spatial information into consideration, which is vital in hyperspectral anomaly detection; 2) formulation of the graph Laplacian matrix L is time-consuming, it has to traverse the entire image to select the k-nearest neighbors for each PUT.…”
Section: Supergraphmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More recently, some efforts have been devoted to addressing the above-mentioned problems to some extent. In the anomaly detection task, several commonly used properties about the background pixels (low rank or spatially smooth) and anomalous targets (sparse) [19], [20] have also been applied in the target detection problem [21], in which a detector based on the sparse and low-rank matrix decomposition (SLRMD) of the observed data is established. However, the recovery of background is still unsatisfactory without the use of an appropriate background dictionary [22].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, it is difficult to obtain the precise spectral information for the supervised method. However, unsupervised target detection methods, which are also referred to as anomaly detection methods and require no prior information, have more important research value in reality and have, thus, been widely applied in various fields, including food quality, safety control, search and rescue, mineral detection, and environmental surveillance [2,[20][21][22].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, a number of representation-based methods have been proposed. These methods do not require any statistical assumptions and have, thus, attracted significant attention [20]. These techniques make use of the conspicuous characteristics of anomalies: the low probability of occurrence and the different spectral signature from the background pixels [27].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%