4.6 Article

Graph- and Machine-Learning-Based Texture Classification

期刊

ELECTRONICS
卷 12, 期 22, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/electronics12224626

关键词

texture classification; horizontal visibility graph; natural visibility graph; feature extraction; image natural visibility graph; classifiers; machine learning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Texture analysis is an important task in image processing and computer vision. This paper proposes a method for texture classification using graphs, specifically the natural and horizontal visibility graphs. The suggested method outperforms traditional techniques and even approaches the performance of convolutional neural networks. The results show the potential of graph methods for texture classification.
The analysis of textures is an important task in image processing and computer vision because it provides significant data for image retrieval, synthesis, segmentation, and classification. Automatic texture recognition is difficult, however, and necessitates advanced computational techniques due to the complexity and diversity of natural textures. This paper presents a method for classifying textures using graphs; specifically, natural and horizontal visibility graphs. The related image natural visibility graph (INVG) and image horizontal visibility graph (IHVG) are used to obtain features for classifying textures. These features are the clustering coefficient and the degree distribution. The suggested outcomes show that the aforementioned technique outperforms traditional ones and even comes close to matching the performance of convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Classifiers such as the support vector machine (SVM), K-nearest neighbor (KNN), decision tree (DT), and random forest (RF) are utilized for the categorization. The suggested method is tested on well-known image datasets like the Brodatz texture and the Salzburg texture image (STex) datasets. The results are positive, showing the potential of graph methods for texture classification.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据