Spatially adaptive smoothing parameter selection for Markov random field based sub-pixel mapping of remotely sensed images

Sub-pixel mapping is a process to provide the spatial distributions of land cover classes with finer spatial resolution than the size of a remotely sensed image pixel. Traditional Markov random field-based sub-pixel mapping (MRF_SPM) adopts a fixed smoothing parameter estimated based on the entire image to balance the spatial and spectral energies. However, the spectra of the remotely sensed pixels are always spatially variable. Adopting a fixed smoothing parameter disregards the local properties provided by each pixel spectrum, and may probably lead to insufficient smoothing in the homogeneous region and over-smoothing between class boundaries simultaneously. This article proposes a spatially adaptive parameter selection method for the MRF_SPM model to overcome the limitation of the fixed parameter. As pixel class proportions are indicators of the type and proportion of land cover classes within each coarse pixel, in the proposed method, fraction images providing pixel class proportions as local properties of each pixel spectrum are employed to constrain the smoothing parameter. Consequently, the smoothing parameter is spatially adaptive to each pixel spectrum of the remotely sensed image. Synthetic images and IKONOS multi-spectral images were employed. Results showed that compared with the hard classification method and the non-spatially adaptive MRF_SPM adopting a fixed smoothing parameter, the spatially adaptive MRF_SPM with the smoothing parameter constrained to each pixel spectrum yielded sub-pixel maps not only with higher accuracy but also with shapes and boundaries visually reconstructed more closely to the reference map.

[1]  Xiaodong Li,et al.  Land Cover Change Mapping at the Subpixel Scale With Different Spatial-Resolution Remotely Sensed Imagery , 2011, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters.

[2]  Donald Geman,et al.  Stochastic Relaxation, Gibbs Distributions, and the Bayesian Restoration of Images , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

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

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

[5]  Xiaodong Li,et al.  Using a sub-pixel mapping model to improve the accuracy of landscape pattern indices , 2011 .

[6]  F. Ling,et al.  Waterline mapping at the subpixel scale from remote sensing imagery with high‐resolution digital elevation models , 2008 .

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

[8]  Fei Xiao,et al.  Super-resolution land-cover mapping using multiple sub-pixel shifted remotely sensed images , 2010 .

[9]  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 .

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

[11]  J. Qi,et al.  Modification of pixel-swapping algorithm with initialization from a sub-pixel/pixel spatial attraction model , 2009 .

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

[13]  S. M. Jong,et al.  Remote Sensing Image Analysis: Including The Spatial Domain , 2011 .

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

[15]  Giles M. Foody,et al.  Localized soft classification for super‐resolution mapping of the shoreline , 2006 .

[16]  G. Foody Sub-pixel methods in remote sensing , 2004 .

[17]  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..

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

[19]  Ashton M. Shortridge,et al.  Assessing Alternatives for Modeling the Spatial Distribution of Multiple Land-cover Classes at Sub-pixel Scales , 2007 .

[20]  Yong Ge,et al.  Development and Testing of a Subpixel Mapping Algorithm , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

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

[22]  Alfred Stein,et al.  Quantification of the Effects of Land-Cover-Class Spectral Separability on the Accuracy of Markov-Random-Field-Based Superresolution Mapping , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

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