cs.CVSep 30, 2026

Hyperspectral Image Models: Technical Report

Authors: Tanishq Rachamalla, Aryan Das, Srishti Kaushik, Swalpa Kumar Roy

Organizations: Department of Information Technology Siddhartha Academy of Higher Education Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 521108, India · Department of Computer Science and Engineering Vellore Institute of Technology Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 466114, India · Department of Computer and Information Sciences Indira Gandhi National Open University New Delhi 110068, India · Department of Computer Science and Engineering Tezpur University Tezpur, Assam 784028, India

Abstract

Hyperspectral remote sensing has advanced across diverse deep learning paradigms, including spectral spatial CNNs, Vision Transformers, Mamba, graph neural networks, Kolmogorov Arnold networks, and self supervised masked autoencoding. Yet progress remains hindered by fragmented repositories, incompatible tensor conventions, and non standardized evaluation. Hyperspectral Image Models addresses these challenges through a modular framework unifying 55 representative models across six paradigms with a common registry, automatic 4D/5D tensor adaptation, and standardized constructors. It integrates 24 benchmark scenes from Airborne, Spaceborne, UAV, and Mars CRISM sensors, with caching, label remapping, PCA, explicit band selection or raw spectra, optional spatial max pooling, and arbitrary PxP patch extraction. To prevent inflated accuracy from overlapping windows, it supports class balanced random partitioning and spatially disjoint regional blocking with Chebyshev guard bands that eliminate train test pixel overlap. Experiments use a single config.yaml with deterministic seeds and complete provenance, generating LaTeX benchmark tables and classification maps. Across 1,320 model scene evaluations and 6,600 seeded runs, scene difficulty dominates architecture, with mean accuracy ranging from 96.40% on Botswana to 56.70% on Houston 2018, versus a 15 point spread across paradigm means. No paradigm universally dominates, while sub 1 M parameter models can match architectures two orders of magnitude larger. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/Tanishq251/Hyperspectral-Image-Models.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables3 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

Jul 23, 2026cs.CV

HyperImageNet: A Large-Scale High-Spatial Resolution Hyperspectral Imagery Classification Benchmark

We present HyperImageNet, a large-scale benchmark for fine-grained hyperspectral land-cover understanding. The dataset contains 26,084 airborne hyperspectral image patches with 224 spectral bands and 138 fine-grained land-cover categories. Unlike existing datasets, HyperImageNet provides raw imagery, pixel-level semantic labels, and object-level instance masks, supporting both semantic and instance segmentation. Furthermore, we establish an open-environment benchmark with strict spatial separation to evaluate representative methods and the HyperFree foundation model. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of HyperImageNet for fine-grained hyperspectral understanding and open-environment remote sensing research.
Sep 29, 2026cs.CV

HyperSAM: A Promptable Foundation Model for Hyperspectral Remote Sensing

Hyperspectral remote sensing provides dense spectral measurements that are indispensable for material-level Earth observation, yet the construction of a general-purpose hyperspectral foundation model remains difficult. Two bottlenecks are especially limiting. First, large hyperspectral corpora rarely provide high spatial resolution together with reliable dense annotations. Second, many hyperspectral models are still trained almost from scratch, so the geometric and interactive priors learned by modern vision foundation models are not fully reused. To alleviate these issues, we \highlight{present} \textbf{HyperSAM}, a promptable hyperspectral foundation model that couples a data-centric hyperspectral synthesis pipeline with a spectral adaptation architecture based on Segment Anything Model 3 (SAM3). On the data side, HyperSAM synthesizes full-spectrum hyperspectral cubes from high-resolution SpaceNet multispectral imagery through a physics-informed abundance-transfer generator, while SAM3-derived pseudo-masks provide object-centric supervision. On the model side, the latest implementation uses a frozen SAM3 RGB image branch, a trainable hyperspectral side encoder initialized from the RGB vision transformer (ViT), ControlNet-style zero-initialized feature injection, and a lightweight mixture-of-experts mask refiner. To enhance training robustness against noisy pseudo-labels, Cross-modal Sample Selection (CromSS)-style confidence selection is incorporated for noisy-label weighting. Extensive experiments show that HyperSAM obtains strong generalization on diverse hyperspectral tasks (e.g., classification, anomaly detection, change detection, target detection, and airborne oil-spill mapping) and that high-quality synthetic hyperspectral data can be more effective than simply scaling noisy hyperspectral supervision.
Sep 1, 2026cs.CV

Ten Architectures, One Error: Shared Failure Modes in Hyperspectral Classification under Spatially Disjoint Evaluation

Hyperspectral image classification still relies heavily on random pixel splits within a single scene. The Salinas dataset, randomly split, is among the most widely used datasets for comparing different architectures. However, under a random split method, a large fraction of test pixels fall immediately adjacent to a training pixel, which inflates reported accuracy. This work introduces a leakage-free evaluation protocol linking spatial separation to the model's receptive field. Applying this protocol across ten different architectures, including classical, spectral, spectral-spatial, transformer, vision-backbone, and state-space families, shows that Macro-F1 drops by 0.147 on average and model rankings change by as many as five places. Furthermore, leakage-free evaluation limits which architectures can be tested on a given benchmark. Since each partition supports patches only within a finite radius, reporting this radius alongside the receptive field is essential for fair comparison. In addition, this study reveals that all ten architectures misclassify largely the same pixels, pointing to a spectral ambiguity in the data that none of them resolves.