2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.01.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Supervised classification methods applied to airborne hyperspectral images: comparative study using mutual information

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
2
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In all cases, classification accuracies decreased when using the KNN instead of the SVM for the classification stage. This result confirms the fact that the classifier SVMs are less affected by the Hughes phenomenon especially when trained with mixed spectral-spatial data confirming the results obtained on our previous work [28]. Fig.…”
Section: Classification Results and Discussion 1) Classification Resu...supporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In all cases, classification accuracies decreased when using the KNN instead of the SVM for the classification stage. This result confirms the fact that the classifier SVMs are less affected by the Hughes phenomenon especially when trained with mixed spectral-spatial data confirming the results obtained on our previous work [28]. Fig.…”
Section: Classification Results and Discussion 1) Classification Resu...supporting
confidence: 91%
“…The SVM and KNN algorithms choice is based on our previous comparison study [28] where both classifiers results showed their great performance for HSI classification compared to other classifiers.…”
Section: B Classifiers and Evaluation Metricsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After observing the classification results, it was concluded that the SVM has the highest accuracy results followed by the RF classification which is considered slightly better than the K-NN. The achieved results were close to what was mentioned in [21] as the SVM, RF, and K-NN classifiers were achieving the best accuracies respectively, which is the same conclusion that was reached in this dataset. 2) Second dataset results: The second dataset classification results are completely different from the first.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…In [21], comparison research of four supervised classifiers has been offered using HSI of different datasets obtained using AVIRIS sensor. They used the following classification methods which are SVM with different kernel types, Random Forest RF, Discriminant Analysis (DA) with two different kernels, and K-NN.…”
Section: E Classification Using Svm Rf Da and K-nnmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interest in supervised learning has been rekindled by the availability of big datasets and better computer capabilities. A variety of techniques, including support vector machines (SVM), random forests (RF), and DL algorithms, have been created and used by researchers in a variety of domains, including remote sensing [ 132 ], computer vision [ 133 ], image processing ([ [134] , [135] ]) natural language processing [ 136 ], health [ 137 ], andWQM. Bagging, k-nearest Neighbors (k-NN), Logistic Regression (LR), Naive Bayes, and Bayesian Networks are more examples of supervised learning algorithms.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%