4.3 Article

The comparison of PCA and discrete rough set for feature extraction of remote sensing image classification - A case study on rice classification, Taiwan

Journal

COMPUTATIONAL GEOSCIENCES
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 1-14

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10596-007-9057-7

Keywords

discrete rough set; PCA; image classification; knowledge rules

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Texture information offers an extensive solution for image classification by providing better accuracy of image information. However, huge amounts of improper additional texture information may result in a chaotic state, and this leads to uncertainty in the classification process. Considerable portion of earlier works have been carried out through the generally acknowledged procedure of Principal Components Analysis (PCA). However, the PCA method has flaws in the area of influenced and non- influenced attributes. On the whole, whether PCA provides an effective solution to determine the value of knowledge rule in image information still remains a question. This study proposes an innovative method, called Discrete Rough Set method, as a tool for image classification. This study focuses on two crucial issues: (1) The core attributes of the target categories in image classification are systematically analyzed while eliminating surplus attributes rationally; (2) The unique point of each attribute, which influenced the target categories, is successfully found. This is a crucial aspect that is very helpful for the construction of decision rule. Finally, in this study we utilized the expert knowledge classifier and the overall accuracy of Discrete Rough Set (96.67%) exceeds that of the conventional PCA (86.00%) of paddy rice area evaluation from Quickbird image. This result shows that the appropriate classification knowledge can be presented by Discrete Rough Set, and this information can effectively improve the accuracy of image classification.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available