Learnable Quantum Efficiency Filters for Urban Hyperspectral Segmentation
arXiv:2603.26528v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Hyperspectral sensing provides rich spectral information for scene understanding in urban driving, but its high dimensionality poses challenges for interpretation and efficient learning. We introduce Learnable Quantum Efficiency (LQE), a physics-inspired, interpretable dimensionality reduction (DR) method that parameterizes smooth high-order spectral response functions that emulate plausible sensor quantum efficiency curves. Unlike conventional methods or unconstrained learnable layers, LQE enforces physically motivated constraints, including a s — Imad Ali Shah, Jiarong Li, Ethan Delaney, Enda Ward, Martin Glavin, Edward Jones, Brian Deegan
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Hyperspectral sensing provides rich spectral information for scene understanding in urban driving, but its high dimensionality poses challenges for interpretation and efficient learning. We introduce Learnable Quantum Efficiency (LQE), a physics-inspired, interpretable dimensionality reduction (DR) method that parameterizes smooth high-order spectral response functions that emulate plausible sensor quantum efficiency curves. Unlike conventional methods or unconstrained learnable layers, LQE enforces physically motivated constraints, including a single dominant peak, smooth responses, and bounded bandwidth. This formulation yields a compact spectral representation that preserves discriminative information while remaining fully differentiable and end-to-end trainable within semantic segmentation models (SSMs). We conduct systematic evaluations across three publicly available multi-class hyperspectral urban driving datasets, comparing LQE against six conventional and seven learnable baseline DR methods across six SSMs. Averaged across all SSMs and configurations, LQE achieves the highest average mIoU, improving over conventional methods by 2.45%, 0.45%, and 1.04%, and over learnable methods by 1.18%, 1.56%, and 0.81% on HyKo, HSI-Drive, and Hyperspectral City, respectively. LQE maintains strong parameter efficiency (12--36 parameters compared to 51--22K for competing learnable approaches) and competitive inference latency. Ablation studies show that low-order configurations are optimal, while the learned spectral filters converge to dataset-intrinsic wavelength patterns. These results demonstrate that physics-informed spectral learning can improve both performance and interpretability, providing a principled bridge between hyperspectral perception and data-driven multispectral sensor design for automotive vision systems.
Subjects:
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)
Cite as: arXiv:2603.26528 [cs.CV]
(or arXiv:2603.26528v1 [cs.CV] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.26528
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
Submission history
From: Imad Ali Shah [view email] [v1] Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:40:12 UTC (2,159 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article

Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
researchpaperarxiv![First time NeurIPS. How different is it from low-ranked conferences? [D]](https://d2xsxph8kpxj0f.cloudfront.net/310419663032563854/konzwo8nGf8Z4uZsMefwMr/default-img-robot-hand-JvPW6jsLFTCtkgtb97Kys5.webp)
First time NeurIPS. How different is it from low-ranked conferences? [D]
I'm a PhD student and already published papers in A/B ranked paper (10+). My field of work never allowed me to work on something really exciting and a core A* conference. But finally after years I think I have work worthy of some discussion at the top venue. I'm referring to papers (my field and top papers) from previous editions and I notice that there's a big difference on how people write, how they put their message on table and also it is too theoretical sometimes. Are there any golden rules people follow who frequently get into these conferences? Should I be soft while making novelty claims? Also those who moved from submitting to niche-conferences to NeurIPS/ICML/CVPR, did you change your approach? My field is imaging in healthcare. submitted by /u/ade17_in [link] [comments]

AI can describe human experiences but lacks experience in an actual ‘body.’ UCLA researchers say understanding this ‘body gap’ may matter for safety - UCLA Health
AI can describe human experiences but lacks experience in an actual ‘body.’ UCLA researchers say understanding this ‘body gap’ may matter for safety UCLA Health

New IAEA Research Project Uses Machine Learning to Better Predict Polymer Changes under Radiation - International Atomic Energy Agency
New IAEA Research Project Uses Machine Learning to Better Predict Polymer Changes under Radiation International Atomic Energy Agency
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Research Papers

Label-free pathological subtyping of non-small cell lung cancer using deep classification and virtual immunohistochemical staining
npj Digital Medicine, Published online: 03 April 2026; doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02557-x Label-free pathological subtyping of non-small cell lung cancer using deep classification and virtual immunohistochemical staining
![First time NeurIPS. How different is it from low-ranked conferences? [D]](https://d2xsxph8kpxj0f.cloudfront.net/310419663032563854/konzwo8nGf8Z4uZsMefwMr/default-img-robot-hand-JvPW6jsLFTCtkgtb97Kys5.webp)
First time NeurIPS. How different is it from low-ranked conferences? [D]
I'm a PhD student and already published papers in A/B ranked paper (10+). My field of work never allowed me to work on something really exciting and a core A* conference. But finally after years I think I have work worthy of some discussion at the top venue. I'm referring to papers (my field and top papers) from previous editions and I notice that there's a big difference on how people write, how they put their message on table and also it is too theoretical sometimes. Are there any golden rules people follow who frequently get into these conferences? Should I be soft while making novelty claims? Also those who moved from submitting to niche-conferences to NeurIPS/ICML/CVPR, did you change your approach? My field is imaging in healthcare. submitted by /u/ade17_in [link] [comments]



Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!