Combining Multiple Classifiers: An Application Using Spatial and Remotely Sensed Information for Land Cover Type Mapping

This article discusses two new methods for increasing the accuracy of classifiers used land cover mapping. The first method, called the product rule, is a simple and general method of combining two or more classification rules as a single rule. Stacked regression methods of combining classification rules are discussed and compared to the product rule. The second method of increasing classifier accuracy is a simple nonparametric classifier that uses spatial information for classification. Two data sets used for land cover mapping of Landsat TM scenes from Idaho and Montana illustrate the new methods. For these examples, the product rule compared favorably to the more complex stacked regression methods. The spatial classifier produced substantial increases in estimated accuracy when combined with one or more additional classifiers that used remotely sensed variables for classification. These results suggest that the product rule may produce increases in map accuracy with little additional expense or effort. The spatial classifier may be useful for increasing accuracy when patterns exist in the spatial distribution of land cover.

[1]  S. James Press,et al.  The Directional Neighborhoods Approach to Contextual Classification of Images from Noisy Data , 1996 .

[2]  Range Experiment Station,et al.  Forest habitat types of central Idaho , 1981 .

[3]  B. Kartikeyan,et al.  Contextual techniques for classification of high and low resolution remote sensing data , 1994 .

[4]  David W. Roberts,et al.  Forest habitat types of northern Idaho: a second approximation , 1991 .

[5]  B. Steele,et al.  A method of exploiting spatial information for improving classification rules: Application to the construction of polygon-based land cover maps , 2001 .

[6]  Stephen V. Stehman,et al.  Design and Analysis for Thematic Map Accuracy Assessment: Fundamental Principles , 1998 .

[7]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Combining Estimates in Regression and Classification , 1996 .

[8]  Marvin E. Bauer,et al.  Integrating Contextual Information with per-Pixel Classification for Improved Land Cover Classification , 2000 .

[9]  Roland L. Redmond,et al.  Estimation and Mapping of Misclassification Probabilities for Thematic Land Cover Maps , 1998 .

[10]  David J. Hand,et al.  Construction and Assessment of Classification Rules , 1997 .

[11]  P. C. Van Deusen Modified highest confidence first classification , 1995 .

[12]  K. M. S. Sharma,et al.  A modified contextual classification technique for remote sensing data , 1998 .

[13]  W. B. Yates,et al.  Classification of remotely sensed data by an artificial neural network: issues related to training data characteristics , 1995 .

[14]  Thomas C.M. Lee A Minimum Description Length-Based Image Segmentation Procedure, and its Comparison with a Cross-Validation-Based Segmentation Procedure , 2000 .

[15]  Janet Franklin,et al.  A Neural Network Method for Efficient Vegetation Mapping , 1999 .

[16]  M. Mojirsheibani Combining Classifiers via Discretization , 1999 .

[17]  John Haslett,et al.  Maximum likelihood discriminant analysis on the plane using a Markovian model of spatial context , 1985, Pattern Recognit..

[18]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Improvements on Cross-Validation: The 632+ Bootstrap Method , 1997 .

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