Quantification of the Effects of Land-Cover-Class Spectral Separability on the Accuracy of Markov-Random-Field-Based Superresolution Mapping

This paper explores the effects of class separability in Markov-random-field-based superresolution mapping (SRM). We propose to account for class separability by means of controlling the balance tuned by a smoothness parameter between the prior and the likelihood terms in the posterior energy function. A generally applicable procedure estimates the optimal smoothness parameter, based on local energy balance analysis. The study shows how the optimal value of the smoothness parameter depends quantitatively and monotonically upon the class separability and the scale factor. Effects are studied on an image synthesized from an agricultural scene with field boundary subpixels. We varied systematically the class separability, the scale factor, and the smoothness parameter values. The accuracy of the resulting land-cover-map image is assessed by means of the kappa statistic at the fine-resolution scale and the class area proportion at the coarse-resolution scale. Performance is compared with a hard and a soft classification of the coarse-resolution image. We demonstrate that an optimal value of the smoothness parameter exists for each combination of scale factor and class separability. This allows us to reach a high classification accuracy (kappa = 0.85) even for poorly separable classes, i.e., with a transformed divergence equal to 0.5 and a scale factor equal to 10. The developed procedure agrees with the empirical data for the optimal smoothness parameter. The study shows that SRM is now applicable to a larger set of images with class separability ranging from poor to excellent.

[1]  Zhe Jiang,et al.  Spatial Statistics , 2013 .

[2]  P. H. Swain,et al.  Two effective feature selection criteria for multispectral remote sensing , 1973 .

[3]  Peter M. Atkinson,et al.  Issues of Uncertainty in Super-Resolution Mapping and the Design of an Inter-Comparison Study , 2008 .

[4]  Robert A. Schowengerdt,et al.  On the estimation of spatial-spectral mixing with classifier likelihood functions , 1996, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[5]  Peter M. Atkinson,et al.  Issues of uncertainty in super-resolution mapping and their implications for the design of an inter-comparison study , 2009 .

[6]  Guido D'Urso,et al.  Performance indicators for the statistical evaluation of digital image classifications , 1996 .

[7]  Peter M. Atkinson,et al.  Sub‐pixel mapping of rural land cover objects from fine spatial resolution satellite sensor imagery using super‐resolution pixel‐swapping , 2006 .

[8]  C. Woodcock,et al.  Autocorrelation and regularization in digital images. I. Basic theory , 1988 .

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

[10]  Philip H. Swain,et al.  Remote Sensing: The Quantitative Approach , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[11]  P. Fisher The pixel: A snare and a delusion , 1997 .

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

[13]  Hugh G. Lewis,et al.  Super-resolution land cover pattern prediction using a Hopfield neural network , 2002 .

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

[15]  Alexandre Boucher,et al.  Geostatistical Solutions for Super-Resolution Land Cover Mapping , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[16]  A. Skidmore,et al.  Spectral discrimination of vegetation types in a coastal wetland , 2003 .

[17]  Donald Geman,et al.  Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions, and the Bayesian restoration of images , 1984 .

[18]  Gabriele Moser,et al.  Weight Parameter Optimization by the Ho–Kashyap Algorithm in MRF Models for Supervised Image Classification , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[19]  Peter M. Atkinson,et al.  Resolution Manipulation and Sub-Pixel Mapping , 2004 .

[20]  Optimum Band Selection for Supervised Classification of Multispectral Data , 2007 .

[21]  John A. Richards,et al.  Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis: An Introduction , 1999 .

[22]  Stan Z. Li,et al.  Markov Random Field Modeling in Image Analysis , 2001, Computer Science Workbench.

[23]  Koen C. Mertens,et al.  A sub‐pixel mapping algorithm based on sub‐pixel/pixel spatial attraction models , 2006 .

[24]  John R. Schott,et al.  Remote Sensing: The Image Chain Approach , 1996 .

[25]  Eric D. Kolaczyk,et al.  Gaussian mixture discriminant analysis and sub-pixel land cover characterization in remote sensing , 2003 .

[26]  Hugh G. Lewis,et al.  Increasing the spatial resolution of agricultural land cover maps using a Hopfield neural network , 2003, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[27]  P. Atkinson,et al.  Mapping sub-pixel proportional land cover with AVHRR imagery , 1997 .

[28]  A. Boucher,et al.  Integrating Fine Scale Information in Super-resolution Land-cover Mapping , 2007 .

[29]  T. Kailath The Divergence and Bhattacharyya Distance Measures in Signal Selection , 1967 .

[30]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  A Markov random field model for classification of multisource satellite imagery , 1996, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[31]  Andrew J. Tatem Super-resolution land cover mapping from remotely sensed imagery using a Hopfield neural network , 2001 .

[32]  Russell G. Congalton,et al.  A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data , 1991 .

[33]  Alexandre Boucher,et al.  Super-resolution land cover mapping with indicator geostatistics , 2006 .

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

[35]  J. Settle,et al.  Linear mixing and the estimation of ground cover proportions , 1993 .

[36]  C. D. Gelatt,et al.  Optimization by Simulated Annealing , 1983, Science.