2017
DOI: 10.1109/lgrs.2017.2755061
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multiscale Superpixel-Level Subspace-Based Support Vector Machines for Hyperspectral Image Classification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
39
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 76 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
39
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The classification results for the different number of dilation factors are shown in Figure 18. In this experiment, seven kinds of combination for the dilation factors were considered including: (1), (1,2), (1,2,3), (1,2,3,4), (1,2,3,4,5), (1,2,3,4,5,6) and (1,2,3,4,5,6,7), and 30 samples per class were selected as training samples. With the increasing of number dilation factors, the classification accuracy also improves.…”
Section: Evaluating the Multiple Receptive Field Fusion Blockmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The classification results for the different number of dilation factors are shown in Figure 18. In this experiment, seven kinds of combination for the dilation factors were considered including: (1), (1,2), (1,2,3), (1,2,3,4), (1,2,3,4,5), (1,2,3,4,5,6) and (1,2,3,4,5,6,7), and 30 samples per class were selected as training samples. With the increasing of number dilation factors, the classification accuracy also improves.…”
Section: Evaluating the Multiple Receptive Field Fusion Blockmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Multiscale spatial-spectral classification methods can be categorized into two groups: multiscale superpixel segmentation [6][7][8][9] and multiscale image cubes [10][11][12][13][14][15]. Numerous methods have been developed to determine the optimal scale in multiscale superpixel segmentation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To compare the proposed classification scheme with other state-of-the-art methods, it is important to select the same dataset, the same number of labeled samples and those classification approaches related to superpixels or spatial structure. Based on this consideration, we compare the proposal with different HSI classification methods, including SVM with the Extended Morphological Profile (EMP) and superpixels (EMP-SP-SVM) [56], multi-scale superpixel (MSP) and subspace-based SVM (MSP-SVMsub) [57], superpixel-based discriminative sparse model (SBDSM) [52], superpixel and extreme learning machines (SP-ELM) [55], superpixel-based spatial pyramid representation (SP-SPR) [61], multiple kernel learning-based low rank representation at superpixel level (SP-MKL-LRR) [48] segmented stacked autoencoder (S-SAE) [18] and spectral-spatial correlation segmentation-based classifier (SoCRATE) [21], SuperPCA [54]. All of these approaches try to use superpixels or spatial structure to improve the accuracy of classification results.…”
Section: Comparative Testmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Over the past decade, superpixel segmentation methods have also been extended to HSI classification [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50], aiming at making full use of spectral information and spatial structure in hyperspectral data. By the combination of different segmentation techniques with various classification methods, a number of approaches for HSI classification have been developed, such as ER with sparse representation [42,[51][52][53], SVM [54] or extreme learning machines [55], SLIC with multi-morphological method [56], SVM [57] or convolutional neural network [58] and so on. These HSI classification methods based on superpixel segmentation display good performance in experiments.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%