Geometrical Approximated Principal Component Analysis for Hyperspectral Image Analysis

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a method based on statistics and linear algebra techniques, used in hyperspectral satellite imagery for data dimensionality reduction required in order to speed up and increase the performance of subsequent hyperspectral image processing algorithms. This paper introduces the PCA approximation method based on a geometric construction approach (gaPCA) method, an alternative algorithm for computing the principal components based on a geometrical constructed approximation of the standard PCA and presents its application to remote sensing hyperspectral images. gaPCA has the potential of yielding better land classification results by preserving a higher degree of information related to the smaller objects of the scene (or to the rare spectral objects) than the standard PCA, being focused not on maximizing the variance of the data, but the range. The paper validates gaPCA on four distinct datasets and performs comparative evaluations and metrics with the standard PCA method. A comparative land classification benchmark of gaPCA and the standard PCA using statistical-based tools is also described. The results show gaPCA is an effective dimensionality-reduction tool, with performance similar to, and in several cases, even higher than standard PCA on specific image classification tasks. gaPCA was shown to be more suitable for hyperspectral images with small structures or objects that need to be detected or where preponderantly spectral classes or spectrally similar classes are present.

[1]  H. Kiers,et al.  Kappa Coefficients for Missing Data , 2019, Educational and psychological measurement.

[2]  Giorgos Mountrakis,et al.  A meta-analysis of remote sensing research on supervised pixel-based land-cover image classification processes: General guidelines for practitioners and future research , 2016 .

[3]  Peng Gong,et al.  A comparison of spatial feature extraction algorithms for land-use classification with SPOT HRV data , 1992 .

[4]  Adrian Barbu,et al.  Parameterized principal component analysis , 2016, Pattern Recognit..

[5]  Jérémie Bigot,et al.  Geometric PCA of Images , 2013, SIAM J. Imaging Sci..

[6]  Qihao Weng,et al.  A survey of image classification methods and techniques for improving classification performance , 2007 .

[7]  Joachim Selbig,et al.  Non-linear PCA: a missing data approach , 2005, Bioinform..

[8]  P. Hall,et al.  Properties of principal component methods for functional and longitudinal data analysis , 2006, math/0608022.

[9]  Yi Ma,et al.  Robust principal component analysis? , 2009, JACM.

[10]  Q. Mcnemar Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages , 1947, Psychometrika.

[11]  Hongwen Lin,et al.  Summarization of hyperspectral image visualization methods , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Progress in Informatics and Computing.

[12]  Abhishek Kumar,et al.  An Adaptive Method of PCA for Minimization of Classification Error Using Naïve Bayes Classifier , 2015 .

[13]  Xin Huang,et al.  A comparative study of spatial approaches for urban mapping using hyperspectral ROSIS images over Pavia City, northern Italy , 2009 .

[14]  Jacqueline Le Moigne,et al.  Mutual information as a similarity measure for remote sensing image registration , 2001, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[15]  Jorge Cadima,et al.  Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments , 2016, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[16]  Xiaoqiang Lu,et al.  Remote Sensing Image Scene Classification: Benchmark and State of the Art , 2017, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[17]  James O. Ramsay,et al.  Functional Data Analysis , 2005 .

[18]  Xiaoping Liu,et al.  Automatic Registration of Multisensor Images Using an Integrated Spatial and Mutual Information (SMI) Metric , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[19]  Jon Atli Benediktsson,et al.  Kernel Principal Component Analysis for the Classification of Hyperspectral Remote Sensing Data over Urban Areas , 2009, EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process..

[20]  Jon Atli Benediktsson,et al.  Big Data for Remote Sensing: Challenges and Opportunities , 2016, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[21]  Robert I. Damper,et al.  Band Selection for Hyperspectral Image Classification Using Mutual Information , 2006, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters.

[22]  R.Vidhya,et al.  Texture Based Image Retrieval Using Framelet Transform–Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix(GLCM) , 2013 .

[23]  Rui Zhang,et al.  Approximations of the standard principal components analysis and kernel PCA , 2010, Expert Syst. Appl..

[24]  F. Longo,et al.  Prisma Mission Status and Perspective , 2019, IGARSS 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium.

[25]  D. Nagesh Kumar,et al.  Spectral-spatial classification of hyperspectral data with mutual information based segmented stacked autoencoder approach , 2018 .

[26]  M. F. Baumgardner,et al.  220 Band AVIRIS Hyperspectral Image Data Set: June 12, 1992 Indian Pine Test Site 3 , 2015 .

[27]  Alina LuminiIa Machidon,et al.  On Parallelizing Geometrical PCA Approximation , 2019, 2019 18th RoEduNet Conference: Networking in Education and Research (RoEduNet).

[28]  F. Parmiggiani,et al.  An investigation of the textural characteristics associated with gray level cooccurrence matrix statistical parameters , 1995, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[29]  Carlos González,et al.  Hyperspectral Image Compression Using Vector Quantization, PCA and JPEG2000 , 2018, Remote. Sens..

[30]  D. Barber,et al.  SAR sea ice discrimination using texture statistics : a multivariate approach , 1991 .

[31]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Textural Features for Image Classification , 1973, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[32]  Chein-I Chang,et al.  Unsupervised hyperspectral image analysis with projection pursuit , 2000, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..