Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Kallepalli, A.; Kumar, A.; Khoshelham, K. (2014)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Hyperspectral data finds applications in the domain of remote sensing. However, with the increase in amounts of information and advantages associated, come the "curse" of dimensionality and additional computational load. The question most often remains as to which subset of the data best represents the information in the imagery. The present work is an attempt to establish entropy, a statistical measure for quantifying uncertainty, as a formidable measure for determining the optimal number of principal components (PCs) for improved identification of land cover classes. Feature extraction from the Airborne Prism EXperiment (APEX) data was achieved utilizing Principal Component Analysis (PCA). However, determination of optimal number of PCs is vital as addition of computational load to the classification algorithm with no significant improvement in accuracy can be avoided. Considering the soft classification approach applied in this work, entropy results are to be analyzed. Comparison of these entropy measures with traditional accuracy assessment of the corresponding „hardened‟ outputs showed results in the affirmative of the objective. The present work concentrates on entropy being utilized for optimal feature extraction for pre-processing before further analysis, rather than the analysis of accuracy obtained from principal component analysis and possibilistic c-means classification. Results show that 7 PCs of the APEX dataset would be the optimal choice, as they show lower entropy and higher accuracy, along with better identification compared to other combinations while utilizing the APEX dataset.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Hughes, G. 1968. “On the Mean Accuracy of Statistical Pattern Recognizers.” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 14 (1): 55-63.
    • Itten, Klaus I., Francesco Dell‟Endice, Andreas Hueni, Mathias Kneubühler, Daniel Schläpfer, Daniel Odermatt, Felix Seidel, et al. 2008. “APEX - the Hyperspectral ESA Airborne Prism Experiment.” Sensors 8 (10): 6235-59. doi:10.3390/s8106235.
    • Jain, Anil, and Douglas Zongker. 1997. “Feature Selection: Evaluation, Application, and Small Sample Performance.” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 19 (2): 153-58.
    • Janecek, Andreas GK, and Wilfried N. Gansterer. 2008. “A Comparison of Classiffication Accuracy Achieved with Wrappers, Filters and PCA.” In Workshop on New Challenges for Feature Selection in Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.
    • http://www.ecmlpkdd2008.org/sites/ecmlpkdd2008.org/files/pdf /workshops/fsdm/7.pdf.
    • Jehle, Michael, Andreas Hueni, Alexander Damm, Petra D‟Odorico, Jörg Weyermann, M. Kneubiihler, D. Schlapfer, Michael E. Schaepman, and Koen Meuleman. 2010. “APEXCurrent Status, Performance and Validation Concept.” In Sensors, 533-37.
    • http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5690122.
    • Jolliffe, I. T. 2002. Principal Component Analysis. New York: Springer. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10047693.
    • Krishnapuram, Raghuram, and James M. Keller. 1996. “The Possibilistic c-Means Algorithm: Insights and Recommendations.” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 4 (3): 385-93.
    • Krishnapuram, R., and J.M. Keller. 1993. “A Possibilistic Approach to Clustering.” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 1 (2): 98-110. doi:10.1109/91.227387.
    • Kumar, A., and V. K. Dadhwal. 2010. “Entropy-Based Fuzzy Classification Parameter Optimization Using Uncertainty Variation across Spatial Resolution.” Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing 38 (2): 179-92.
    • Chipman. Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation. 5th ed.
    • Maselli, Fabio, Claudio Conese, and Ljiljana Petkov. 1994.
    • “Use of Probability Entropy for the Estimation and Graphical Representation of the Accuracy of Maximum Likelihood Classifications.” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 49 (2): 13-20.
    • Plaza, A., P. Martinez, J. Plaza, and R. Perez. 2005.
    • “Dimensionality Reduction and Classification of Hyperspectral Image Data Using Sequences of Extended Morphological Transformations.” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 43 (3): 466-79.
    • doi:10.1109/TGRS.2004.841417.
    • Qian, Shen-En, and Guangyi Chen. 2007. “A New Nonlinear Dimensionality Reduction Method with Application to Hyperspectral Image Analysis.” In International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2007, 270-73. IEEE International.
    • http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4422782.
    • Rodarmel, Craig, and Jie Shan. 2002. “Principal Component Analysis for Hyperspectral Image Classification.” Surveying and Land Information Science 62 (2): 115-22.
    • Schlapfer, D., M. Schaepman, S. Bojinski, and A. Borner. 2000.
    • “Calibration and Validation Concept for the Airborne Prism Experiment (APEX).” Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 26 (5): 455-65.
    • “SwissTopo Web Portal.” 2014. Accessed March 3.
    • http://map.geo.admin.ch/?topic=ech&lang=en&X=257116.37& Y=664823.41&zoom=6&bgLayer=ch.swisstopo.swissimage.
    • Wang, Fangju. 1990. “Fuzzy Supervised Classification of Remote Sensing Images.” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 28 (2): 194-201.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Collected from