It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) information is an important data source for modeling environmental variables, so it is essential to develop high quality LULC maps. The hundreds of continuous spectral bands gathered with hyperspectral sensors provide high spectral detail and consequently confirm hyperspectral remote sensing as an appropriate option for many LULC applications. Despite increased spectral detail, issues like high dimensionality, huge volume of data and redundant information, mean that hyperspectral image classification is a complex task. It is therefore essential to develop classification approaches that deals with these issues. Since classification results are directly dependent on the dataset used, it is fundamental to compare and validate the classification approaches in public datasets. With this in mind, aiming to provide a baseline, four classification models in the relatively new hyperspectral HyRANK dataset were evaluated. The classification models were defined with three well-known classification algorithms: Spectral Angle Mapper (SAM), Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Random Forest (RF). A classification model with SAM and another with RF were defined with the 176 surface reflectance bands. A dimensionality reduction with principal component analysis was carried out and a classification model with SVM and another with RF were defined using 14 principal components as features. The results show that SVM and RF algorithms outperformed by far the SAM in terms of accuracy, and that the RF is slightly better than the SVM in this respect. It is also possible to see from the results that the use of principal components as features provided an improvement in the accuracy of the RF and an improvement of 28% in the time spent fitting the classification model.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Graduate Program in Cartographic Sciences, São Paulo State University, Presidente Prudente, Brazil; Graduate Program in Cartographic Sciences, São Paulo State University, Presidente Prudente, Brazil
2 Graduate Program in Cartographic Sciences, São Paulo State University, Presidente Prudente, Brazil; Graduate Program in Cartographic Sciences, São Paulo State University, Presidente Prudente, Brazil; Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Sciences, São Paulo State University, Presidente Prudente, Brazil
3 Graduate Program in Cartographic Sciences, São Paulo State University, Presidente Prudente, Brazil; Graduate Program in Cartographic Sciences, São Paulo State University, Presidente Prudente, Brazil; Dept. of Cartography, São Paulo State University, Presidente Prudente, Brazil