A sub‐pixel mapping algorithm based on sub‐pixel/pixel spatial attraction models

Soft classification techniques avoid the loss of information characteristic to hard classification techniques when handling mixed pixels. Sub‐pixel mapping is a method incorporating benefits of both hard and soft classification techniques. In this paper an algorithm is developed based on sub‐pixel/pixel attractions. The design of the algorithm is accomplished using artificial imagery but testing is done on artificial as well as real synthetic imagery. The algorithm is evaluated both visually and quantitatively using established classification accuracy indices. The resulting images show increased accuracy when compared to hardened soft classifications.

[1]  Luciano Alparone,et al.  Image fusion—the ARSIS concept and some successful implementation schemes , 2003 .

[2]  G. Foody.  Sharpening fuzzy classification output to refine the representation of sub-pixel land cover distribution , 1998 .

[3]  G. Foody.  Thematic map comparison: Evaluating the statistical significance of differences in classification accuracy , 2004 .

[4]  Robert De Wulf,et al.  Land cover mapping at sub-pixel scales using linear optimization techniques , 2002 .

[5]  Hugh G. Lewis,et al.  Super-resolution target identification from remotely sensed images using a Hopfield neural network , 2001, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[6]  Giles M. Foody,et al.  Super‐resolution mapping of the waterline from remotely sensed data , 2005 .

[7]  Paul Aplin,et al.  Sub-pixel land cover mapping for per-field classification , 2001 .

[8]  L. Wald,et al.  Fusion of high spatial and spectral resolution images : The ARSIS concept and its implementation , 2000 .

[9]  F. J. A. López,et al.  Restoring SPOT images using PSF-derived deconvolution filters , 2002 .

[10]  John R. Schott,et al.  Application of Spectral Mixture Analysis and Image Fusion Techniques for Image Sharpening , 1998 .

[11]  Robert De Wulf,et al.  Sub-pixel mapping with neural networks : real-world spatial configurations learned from artificial shapes , 2003 .

[12]  F. Canters,et al.  Evaluating the uncertainty of area estimates derived from fuzzy land-cover classification , 1997 .

[13]  A. Tatema,et al.  Super-resolution land cover pattern prediction using a Hopfield neural network , 2001 .

[14]  J. R. Jensen,et al.  Subpixel classification of Bald Cypress and Tupelo Gum trees in thematic mapper imagery , 1997 .

[15]  Pramod K. Varshney,et al.  Super-resolution land cover mapping using a Markov random field based approach , 2005 .

[16]  J. Leeuw,et al.  McNemar's test for comparing the accuracy of categorical maps , 2002 .

[17]  L. P. C. Verbeke,et al.  Using genetic algorithms in sub-pixel mapping , 2003 .

[18]  Lieven Verbeke,et al.  Sub-pixel mapping and sub-pixel sharpening using neural network predicted wavelet coefficients , 2004 .

[19]  M. Q. Nguyen,et al.  Superresolution mapping using a Hopfield neural network with lidar data , 2005, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters.

[20]  Goksel Türk,et al.  Gt index: A measure of the success of prediction , 1979 .

[21]  P. Atkinson.  Sub-pixel Target Mapping from Soft-classified, Remotely Sensed Imagery , 2005 .

[22]  Russell G. Congalton,et al.  A practical look at the sources of confusion in error matrix generation , 1993 .

[23]  P. Collier,et al.  Uncertainty in Remote Sensing and GIS , 2004 .

[24]  Christopher Jennison,et al.  A Subpixel Image Restoration Algorithm , 1997 .

[25]  Kannan,et al.  ON IMAGE SEGMENTATION TECHNIQUES , 2022 .