Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Ensemble Methods for Classification of Hyperspectral Data

2008, IGARSS 2008 - 2008 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium

In this paper we explore the use of an ensemble of classifiers or multiple classifiers for classification of hyperspectral data. Traditionally, in pattern recognition, a single classifier is used to determine which class a given pattern belongs to. However, in many cases, the classification accuracy can be improved by using an ensemble of classifiers in the classification. In such cases, it is possible to have the individual classifiers support each other in making a decision. The aim is to determine an effective combination method that makes use of the benefits of each classifier but avoids the weaknesses.

ENSEMBLE METHODS FOR CLASSIFICATION OF HYPERSPECTRAL DATA Jón Atli Benediktsson*, Xavier Ceamanos Garcia*,**, Björn Waske* and Mathiue Fauvel** and Johannes R. Sveinsson* (*) Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Iceland 107 Reykjavik, Iceland (**)Department of Images and Signal Processing – GIPSA-Lab, Grenoble Grenoble Institute of Technology - INPG BP 46 - 38402 St Martin d’Heres - FRANCE ABSTRACT In this paper we explore the use of an ensemble of classifiers or multiple classifiers for classification of hyperspectral data. Traditionally, in pattern recognition, a single classifier is used to determine which class a given pattern belongs to. However, in many cases, the classification accuracy can be improved by using an ensemble of classifiers in the classification. In such cases, it is possible to have the individual classifiers support each other in making a decision. The aim is to determine an effective combination method that makes use of the benefits of each classifier but avoids the weaknesses. Three of the most used multiclassification approaches are boosting, bagging [1] and random forests [2]. These approaches are based on manipulating training samples. In contrast, statistical consensus theory is based on treating data sources separately, and it uses all the training data only once. Furthermore, statistical consensus theory classifies the individual data sources, which can in the hyperspectral case be subsets of the hyperspectral data and combines the results using decision fusion. Decision fusion can be defined as the process of fusing information from several individual data sources after each data source has undergone a preliminary classification. For instance, Benediktsson and Kanellopoulos [3] proposed a multisource classifier based on a combination of several neural/statistical classifiers. The samples are first classified by two classifiers, every sample with agreeing results is assigned to the corresponding class. Where there is a conflict between the classifiers, a second neural network is used to classify the remaining samples. The main limitation of this method is the need of large training sets to train the different classifiers. In this paper, we consider using fuzzy decision fusion rules as proposed by Fauvel et al. [4] in order to aggregate the results of different classifiers, and conflicting situations, where the different classifiers disagree, are solved by estimating the pointwise accuracy and modeling the global reliability for each algorithm. Furthermore, we will use Support Vector Machines (SVM) to combine the contributions from individual sources as proposed in [5]. Different airborne hyperspectral datasets are use for the experiments. A ROSIS-03 (Reflective Optics System Imaging Spectrometer) dataset acquired over the city of Pavia and an AVIRIS image from the region sorounding volcano Hekla, Iceland. The flight over the city of Pavia, Italy, was operated by the Deutschen Zentrum fur Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR, the German Aerospace Agency) in the framework of the HySens project, managed and sponsored by the European Union. According to specifications, the number of bands of the ROSIS-03 sensor is 115 with a spectral coverage ranging from 0.43 to 0.86μm. The spatial resolution is 1.3m per pixel. The second image – from the study site near Hekla – was collected by the AVIRIS (Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer) sensor on June 17, 1991. The sensor operates in the visible to mid infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum, ranging from 0.4 to 2.4 μm. Different classifier approaches were applied to the data sets. For the application of the concept introduced in [5] the data was subdivided into two or more independent spectral subsets, using the correlations between the spectral channels as information criterion as done in [3]. Afterwards each subset was classified by a separate SVM and the resulting outputs – i.e., distances of each pixel to the separating hyperplane – were combined by another SVM classifier. The results clearly underline that classifier ensembles can significantly improves the results. For instance the overall accuracy for the Hekla data set is improved up to 4.4% by the SVM ensemble. Moreover the positive impact of the SVM fusion on the total accuracy increases with a decreasing number of training samples. Overall the obtained results using the different ensemble approaches are excellent and outperform traditional single classifier algorithms on the whole data set in terms of accuracies. References: [1] L. Breiman, Bagging Predictors, Technical Report No. 421, Department of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley, 1994. [2] L. Breiman, Random Forests, Machine Learning, 40, 5–32, 2001. [3] J.A. Benediktsson and I. Kanellopoulos, “Decision Fusion Methods in Classification of Multisource and Hyperdimensional Data,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Special Issue on Data Fusion, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 1367-1377, May 1999. [4] M. Fauvel, J. Chanussot and J.A. Benediktsson, “Decision Fusion for the Classification of Urban Remote Sensing Images, IEEE Trans. on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 28282838, Oct. 2006. [5] B. Waske and J.A. Benediktsson, “Fusion of Support Vector Machines for Classification of Multisensor Data,” IEEE Trans. on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 45, no. 12, Dec. 2007.