A COMPARISON OF THE PERFORMANCE OF FUZZY ALGORITHM VERSUS STATISTICAL ALGORITHM BASED SUB-PIXEL CLASSIFIER FOR REMOTE SENSING DATA

It is found that sub-pixel classifiers for classification of multi-spectral remote sensing data yield a higher accuracy. With this objective, a study has been carried out, where fuzzy set theory based sub-pixel classifiers have been compared with statistical based sub-pixel classifier for classification of multi-spectral remote sensing data.Although, a number of Fuzzy set theory based classifiers may be adopted, but in this study only two classifiers are used like; Fuzzy c-Means (FCM) Clustering, Possibilistic c-Means (PCM) Clustering. FCM is an iterative clustering method that may be employed to partition pixels of remote sensing images into different class membership values. PCM clustering is similar to FCM but it does not have probabilistic constraint of FCM. Therefore, the formulation of PCM is based on modified FCM objective function whereby an additional term called as regularizing term is also included. FCM and PCM are essentially unsupervised classifiers, but in this study these classifiers are applied in supervised modes. Maximum Likelihood Classifier (MLC) as well as Possibilistic Maximum Likelihood Classifier (PMLC), the new proposed algorithm have been studied as statistical based classifier. All the algorithms in this work like; FCM, PCM, MLC and PMLC have been evaluated in sub-pixel classification mode and accuracy assessment has been done using Fuzzy Error Matrix (FERM) (Binaghi et al., 1999). It was observed that sub-pixel classification accuracy various with different weighted norms.

[1]  Michael S. Schmidt,et al.  Identifying Speakers With Support Vector Networks , 1996 .

[2]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  The connection between regularization operators and support vector kernels , 1998, Neural Networks.

[3]  Giles M. Foody,et al.  Land Cover Mapping from Remotely Sensed Data with a Neural Network: Accommodating Fuzziness , 1997 .

[4]  Alexander J. Smola,et al.  Support Vector Method for Function Approximation, Regression Estimation and Signal Processing , 1996, NIPS.

[5]  I. Kanellopoulos,et al.  Land-cover discrimination in SPOT HRV imagery using an artificial neural network - a 20-class experiment , 1992 .

[6]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  Nonlinear Component Analysis as a Kernel Eigenvalue Problem , 1998, Neural Computation.

[7]  R. Lucas,et al.  Non-linear mixture modelling without end-members using an artificial neural network , 1997 .

[8]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  Extracting Support Data for a Given Task , 1995, KDD.

[9]  H. Kerdiles,et al.  NOAA-AVHRR NDVI decomposition and subpixel classification using linear mixing in the Argentinean Pampa , 1995 .

[10]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  On a Kernel-Based Method for Pattern Recognition, Regression, Approximation, and Operator Inversion , 1998, Algorithmica.

[11]  Martin Casdagli,et al.  Nonlinear prediction of chaotic time series , 1989 .

[12]  G. Foody,et al.  Sub-pixel land cover composition estimation using a linear mixture model and fuzzy membership functions , 1994 .

[13]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  Comparison of View-Based Object Recognition Algorithms Using Realistic 3D Models , 1996, ICANN.

[14]  Giles M. Foody,et al.  Approaches for the production and evaluation of fuzzy land cover classifications from remotely-sensed data , 1996 .

[15]  Christopher J. C. Burges,et al.  Simplified Support Vector Decision Rules , 1996, ICML.

[16]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Text categorization with support vector machines , 1999 .

[17]  B. Schölkopf,et al.  General cost functions for support vector regression. , 1998 .

[18]  Federico Girosi,et al.  An Equivalence Between Sparse Approximation and Support Vector Machines , 1998, Neural Computation.

[19]  Alexander J. Smola,et al.  Support Vector Regression Machines , 1996, NIPS.

[20]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  Improving the Accuracy and Speed of Support Vector Machines , 1996, NIPS.

[21]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  Support Vector methods in learning and feature extraction , 1998 .

[22]  Christopher J. C. Burges,et al.  Geometry and invariance in kernel based methods , 1999 .

[23]  R. Lucas,et al.  An evaluation of fuzzy and texture-based classification approaches for mapping regenerating tropical forest classes from Landsat-TM data , 1995 .

[24]  James C. Bezdek,et al.  Pattern Recognition with Fuzzy Objective Function Algorithms , 1981, Advanced Applications in Pattern Recognition.

[25]  James M. Keller,et al.  A possibilistic approach to clustering , 1993, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst..

[26]  Federico Girosi,et al.  Reducing the run-time complexity of Support Vector Machines , 1999 .

[27]  Federico Girosi,et al.  An improved training algorithm for support vector machines , 1997, Neural Networks for Signal Processing VII. Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE Signal Processing Society Workshop.

[28]  Elisabetta Binaghi,et al.  A fuzzy set-based accuracy assessment of soft classification , 1999, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[29]  Corinna Cortes,et al.  Support-Vector Networks , 1995, Machine Learning.

[30]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  Incorporating Invariances in Support Vector Learning Machines , 1996, ICANN.

[31]  Aly A Farag,et al.  Mean Field Theory for Density Estimation Using Support Vector Machines , 2004 .

[32]  G. Wahba.  Support Vector Machines, Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces and the Randomized GACV 1 , 1998 .

[33]  Gunnar Rätsch,et al.  Predicting Time Series with Support Vector Machines , 1997, ICANN.