Cited by 212Remote-Sensing Image ClassificationInfrared Target Detection MethodologiesAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Hyperspectral Anomaly Detection With Robust Graph Autoencoders

Fan, Ganghui, Ma, Yong, Mei, Xiaoguang, Fan, Fan, Huang, Jun, Ma, Jiayi·2022·IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing

Abstract

Anomaly detection of hyperspectral data has been gaining particular attention for its ability in detecting targets in an unsupervised manner. Autoencoder (AE), together with its variants can not only extract intrinsic features automatically but also detect anomalies that differ dramatically from others. Many AE-driven algorithms are, thus, proposed for anomaly detection in hyperspectral imagery (HSI), but they suffer from two problems: 1) when there exist anomalies in the training set, AE can generalize so well that it can also learn the abnormal patterns well, thereby reducing the ability to distinguish anomalies from the background and 2) geometric structure among samples are lost in latent space of AE, which is vital in hyperspectral anomaly detection. To tackle these problems, we propose a robust anomaly detector based on the AE framework, named robust graph AE (RGAE) detector, in this article. To be specific, we propose a robust AE framework with$\ell _{2,1}$-norm that is robust to noise and anomalies during training. Meanwhile, we embed a superpixel segmentation-based graph regularization term (SuperGraph) into AE. This strategy can preserve the geometric structure and the local spatial consistency of HSI simultaneously and also effectively reduce the searching space and execution time for each pixel. Extensive experiments are conducted on five datasets, and the results demonstrate that our method has a better detection performance, after comparing with other state-of-t…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tgrs.2021.3097097

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. 10.1109/MGRS.2013.2244672 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1109/MSP.2013.2278992 · DOI
  3. 10.1109/MGRS.2021.3075491 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.neucom.2017.11.052 · DOI
  5. 10.1109/TGRS.2020.3048257 · DOI
  6. 10.1109/TGRS.2020.2982064 · DOI
  7. 10.1109/TGRS.2019.2892899 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.jag.2017.05.004 · DOI
  9. 10.3390/rs9111110 · DOI
  10. 10.3390/rs10030417 · DOI
  11. 10.1109/MAES.2010.5546306 · DOI
  12. 10.1109/TGRS.2014.2303895 · DOI
  13. 10.1109/TGRS.2018.2872590 · DOI
  14. 10.1109/JSTARS.2019.2940278 · DOI
  15. 10.1109/29.60107 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1109/JSTARS.2013.2238609 · DOI
  17. 10.1109/TGRS.2004.841487 · DOI
  18. 10.1109/TGRS.2016.2585495 · DOI
  19. 10.1109/WHISPERS.2015.8075391 · DOI
  20. 10.1109/TGRS.2015.2493201 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1109/TGRS.2018.2818159 · DOI
  22. 10.1109/IGARSS.2016.7729476 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/j.inffus.2018.09.004 · DOI
  24. 10.1109/TIP.2020.2999855 · DOI
  25. 10.1109/TGRS.2020.3046321 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.ins.2020.03.062 · DOI
  27. 10.1109/IGARSS.2019.8898697 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.infrared.2018.06.001 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.infrared.2018.12.011 · DOI
  30. 10.1109/TGRS.2019.2944419 · DOI
  31. 10.1109/TCYB.2015.2497711 · DOI
  32. 10.1109/ICCV.2019.00179 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1145/1143844.1143880 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/j.ins.2020.03.033 · DOI
  35. 10.1109/ICASSP39728.2021.9414767 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/j.neunet.2019.08.012 · DOI
  37. 10.1109/TPAMI.2016.2562626 · DOI
  38. 10.1109/TPAMI.2015.2400461 · DOI
  39. 10.1109/TIP.2016.2605010 · DOI
  40. 10.1109/CVPR.2017.746 · DOI
  41. 10.1109/TGRS.2016.2616161 · DOI
  42. 10.1145/3097983.3098052 · DOI
  43. 10.1109/ICDM.2016.0031 · DOI
  44. 10.1109/TPAMI.2012.120 · DOI
  45. 10.1109/TGRS.2019.2961703 · DOI
  46. 10.1109/TGRS.2015.2479299 · DOI
  47. 10.1109/TGRS.2019.2936308 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Fan, G., Ma, Y., Mei, X., Fan, F., Huang, J., & Ma, J.
Affiliations
Wuhan University (CN)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Published
2022
Volume
60
Pages
1-14
ISSN
  • 0196-2892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-0644
OpenAlex
W3186256209
Cited by
212
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 18
FWCI
13.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (61903279, 62075169, 62003247, 62061160370)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Remote-Sensing Image Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Infrared Target Detection Methodologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Keywords
hyperspectral anomaly detection, graph autoencoder, l2,1-norm regularization, superpixel segmentation, graph regularization, spatial structure preservation, unsupervised anomaly detection, hyperspectral imagery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review