Improving land-cover classification accuracy with a patch-based convolutional neural network: data augmentation and purposive sampling

The unit of classification in land-cover mapping is generally divided into two main categories: pixel and object. When it comes to medium-resolution images, a pixel has generally been used as a unit of classification because the object-based approach is often not as effective due to its coarse resolution. Recently, however, the patch-based approach for land-cover classification has shown higher accuracy levels than the pixel-based approach by exploiting the informative features from neighboring pixels. In this study, the light convolutional neural network (LCNN) was used as a patch-based classification algorithm, and two methods to further improve the classification accuracy for patch-based algorithms were addressed. First, data augmentation by flipping and rotation was applied to LCNN to check if its classification accuracy can increase. Second, the purposive sampling, which considers the heterogeneity of a map, was applied to LCNN. This study shows that the classification accuracy of LCNN can be further improved by data augmentation and purposive sampling and thus confirms that the patch-based approach has a distinct advantage over the pixel-based approach.

[1]  Hankui K. Zhang,et al.  Meta-discoveries from a synthesis of satellite-based land-cover mapping research , 2014 .

[2]  Giles M. Foody,et al.  Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment , 2002 .

[3]  David P. Roy,et al.  The global Landsat archive: Status, consolidation, and direction , 2016 .

[4]  Xiaoling Chen,et al.  Remote sensing image-based analysis of the relationship between urban heat island and land use/cover changes , 2006 .

[5]  Peng Chen,et al.  A large‐area, spatially continuous assessment of land cover map error and its impact on downstream analyses , 2018, Global change biology.

[6]  Yonghyun Kim,et al.  A Patch-Based Light Convolutional Neural Network for Land-Cover Mapping Using Landsat-8 Images , 2019, Remote. Sens..

[7]  Guigang Zhang,et al.  Deep Learning , 2016, Int. J. Semantic Comput..

[8]  T. A. Black,et al.  Reduction in carbon uptake during turn of the century drought in western North America , 2012 .

[9]  Annie M. Hunter,et al.  Planning for cooler cities: A framework to prioritise green infrastructure to mitigate high temperatures in urban landscapes , 2015 .

[10]  Eugenio Culurciello,et al.  An Analysis of Deep Neural Network Models for Practical Applications , 2016, ArXiv.

[11]  Giles M. Foody,et al.  Using mixed objects in the training of object-based image classifications , 2017 .

[12]  Francisca López-Granados,et al.  Object- and pixel-based analysis for mapping crops and their agro-environmental associated measures using QuickBird imagery , 2009 .

[13]  Giorgos Mountrakis,et al.  Effect of classifier selection, reference sample size, reference class distribution and scene heterogeneity in per-pixel classification accuracy using 26 Landsat sites , 2018 .

[14]  Giorgos Mountrakis,et al.  A meta-analysis of remote sensing research on supervised pixel-based land-cover image classification processes: General guidelines for practitioners and future research , 2016 .

[15]  Martin Kappas,et al.  Comparison of Random Forest, k-Nearest Neighbor, and Support Vector Machine Classifiers for Land Cover Classification Using Sentinel-2 Imagery , 2017, Sensors.

[16]  Steven E. Franklin,et al.  A comparison of pixel-based and object-based image analysis with selected machine learning algorithms for the classification of agricultural landscapes using SPOT-5 HRG imagery , 2012 .

[17]  Julia A. Barsi,et al.  The next Landsat satellite: The Landsat Data Continuity Mission , 2012 .