File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Comparison of classification algorithms and training sample sizes in urban land classification with landsat thematic mapper imagery

TitleComparison of classification algorithms and training sample sizes in urban land classification with landsat thematic mapper imagery
Authors
KeywordsTree classifiers
Maximum likelihood classification
Machine learning
Logistic regression
Support vector machine
Random forests
Issue Date2014
Citation
Remote Sensing, 2014, v. 6, n. 2, p. 964-983 How to Cite?
AbstractAlthough a large number of new image classification algorithms have been developed, they are rarely tested with the same classification task. In this research, with the same Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) data set and the same classification scheme over Guangzhou City, China, we tested two unsupervised and 13 supervised classification algorithms, including a number of machine learning algorithms that became popular in remote sensing during the past 20 years. Our analysis focused primarily on the spectral information provided by the TM data. We assessed all algorithms in a per-pixel classification decision experiment and all supervised algorithms in a segment-based experiment. We found that when sufficiently representative training samples were used, most algorithms performed reasonably well. Lack of training samples led to greater classification accuracy discrepancies than classification algorithms themselves. Some algorithms were more tolerable to insufficient (less representative) training samples than others. Many algorithms improved the overall accuracy marginally with per-segment decision making.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/296729
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLi, Congcong-
dc.contributor.authorWang, Jie-
dc.contributor.authorWang, Lei-
dc.contributor.authorHu, Luanyun-
dc.contributor.authorGong, Peng-
dc.date.accessioned2021-02-25T15:16:33Z-
dc.date.available2021-02-25T15:16:33Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.citationRemote Sensing, 2014, v. 6, n. 2, p. 964-983-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/296729-
dc.description.abstractAlthough a large number of new image classification algorithms have been developed, they are rarely tested with the same classification task. In this research, with the same Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) data set and the same classification scheme over Guangzhou City, China, we tested two unsupervised and 13 supervised classification algorithms, including a number of machine learning algorithms that became popular in remote sensing during the past 20 years. Our analysis focused primarily on the spectral information provided by the TM data. We assessed all algorithms in a per-pixel classification decision experiment and all supervised algorithms in a segment-based experiment. We found that when sufficiently representative training samples were used, most algorithms performed reasonably well. Lack of training samples led to greater classification accuracy discrepancies than classification algorithms themselves. Some algorithms were more tolerable to insufficient (less representative) training samples than others. Many algorithms improved the overall accuracy marginally with per-segment decision making.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofRemote Sensing-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectTree classifiers-
dc.subjectMaximum likelihood classification-
dc.subjectMachine learning-
dc.subjectLogistic regression-
dc.subjectSupport vector machine-
dc.subjectRandom forests-
dc.titleComparison of classification algorithms and training sample sizes in urban land classification with landsat thematic mapper imagery-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/rs6020964-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84894607481-
dc.identifier.volume6-
dc.identifier.issue2-
dc.identifier.spage964-
dc.identifier.epage983-
dc.identifier.eissn2072-4292-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000336092100004-
dc.identifier.issnl2072-4292-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats