LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

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.

Important!

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

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Pal, Mahesh; Foody, Giles M. (2010)
Publisher: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:

Classified by OpenAIRE into

ACM Ref: ComputingMethodologies_PATTERNRECOGNITION
SVM are attractive for the classification of remotely sensed data with some claims that the method is insensitive to the dimensionality of the data and so not requiring a dimensionality reduction analysis in pre-processing. Here, a series of classification analyses with two hyperspectral sensor data sets reveal that the accuracy of a classification by a SVM does vary as a function of the number of features used. Critically, it is shown that the accuracy of a classification may decline significantly (at 0.05 level of statistical significance) with the addition of features, especially if a small training sample is used. This highlights a dependency of the accuracy of classification by a SVM on the dimensionality of the data and so the potential value of undertaking a feature selection analysis prior to classification. Additionally, it is demonstrated that even when a large training sample is available feature selection may still be useful. For example, the accuracy derived from the use of a small number of features may be non-inferior (at 0.05% level of significance) to that derived from the use of a larger feature set providing potential advantages in relation to issues such as data storage and computational processing costs. Feature selection may, therefore, be a valuable analysis to include in pre-processing operations for classification by a SVM.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [9] S. Lu, K. Oki, Y. Shimizu, and K. Omasa, “Comparison between several feature extraction/classification methods for mapping complicated agricultural land use patches using airborne hyperspectral data,” International Journal of Remote Sensing, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 963-984, Jan. 2007.
    • [17] D. M. J. Tax, D. de Ridder, and R.P.W. Duin, “Support vector classifiers: A first look,” in: H.E. Bal, H. Corporaal, P.P. Jonker, J.F.M. Tonino (eds.), Proceedings of 3rd Annual Conference of the Advanced School for Computing and Imaging (Heijen, NL, June 2-4), ASCI, Delft, pp. 253-258, 1997.
    • [18] J. A. Gualtieri, “The support vector machine (SVM) algorithm for supervised classification of hyperspectral remote sensing data,” In G. Camps-Valls and L. Bruzzone (eds) Kernel Methods for Remote Sensing Data Analysis, Wiley, Chichester, in press, 2009.
    • [19] M. Pal, and P. M. Mather, “Assessment of the effectiveness of support vector machines for hyperspectral data,” Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 1215-1225, October 2004.
    • [20] M. Pal and P. M. Mather, “Some issue in classification of DAIS hyperspectral data,” International Journal of Remote Sensing, vol. 27, no. 14, pp. 2895-2916, July 2006.
    • [21] F. Melgani and L. Bruzzone, “Classification of hyperspectral remote sensing images with support vector machines,” IEEE Transaction of Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 1778-1790, August 2004.
    • [22] I. Guyon, J. Weston, S. Barnhill, and V. N. Vapnik, “Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines,” Machine Learning, vol. 46, no. 1-3, pp. 389-422, Jan. 2002. Information Sciences, Vol. XXXVI, Part 7/C50, p. 258-263, 2007. ISPRS, Davos (CH). ISSN 1682-1777.
    • [24] H. Liu, “Evolving feature selection,” IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 20, pp. 64-76, November 2005.
    • [25] H. Liu and H. Motoda, Feature Extraction, Construction and Selection: A Data Mining Perspective. Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.
    • [26] P. M. Mather, Computer Processing of Remotely-Sensed Images: An Introduction. Third Edition, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2004.
    • [27] R. Kohavi and G.H. John, “Wrappers for feature subset selection,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 97, no. 1-2, pp. 273-324, March 1997.
    • [28] I. Guyon and A. Elisseeff, “An introduction to variable and feature selection,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 3, pp. 1157-1182, March 2003.
    • [29] M. Dash and H. Liu, “Feature selection for classification,” Intelligent Data Analysis: An International Journal, vol.1, no. 3, pp.131-156, 1997.
    • [30] A. Jain and D. Zongker, “Feature selection: evaluation, application, and small sample performance,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 153-158, February 1997.
    • [31] T. Kavzoglu and P. M. Mather, “The role of feature selection in artificial neural network applications,” International Journal of Remote Sensing, vol. 23, no 15, pp. 2787-2803, Aug. 2002.
    • [32] S. B. Serpico and L. Bruzzone, “A new search algorithm for feature selection in hyperspectral remote sensing images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 1360-1367, July 2001.
    • [40] B. Scholkopf, S. Mika, C.J.C. Burges, P. Knirsch, K.R. Muller, G. Ratsch, and A.J. Smola, “Input space versus feature space in kernel-based methods,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol.10, no. 5, pp.1000-1017, September 1999.
    • [41] S. Geman, E. Bienenstock and R. Doursat, “Neural networks and the bias/variance dilemma,” Neural Computation, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1-58, Jan. 1992.
    • [42] J. L. Fleiss, B. Levin, and M. C. Paik, Statistical Methods for Rates & Proportions. Third edition, New York: Wiley-Interscience, 2003
    • [43] G. M. Foody, “Classification accuracy comparison: hypothesis tests and the use of confidence intervals in evaluations of difference, equivalence and non-inferiority,” Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 113, pp. 1658-1663, 2009.
    • [44] B. Boser, I. Guyon, and V. N. Vapnik, “A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers,” Proceedings of 5th Annual Workshop on Computer Learning Theory, Pittsburgh, PA: ACM, pp.144-152, 1992.
    • [45] N. Cristianini, and J. Shawe-Taylor, An Introduction to Support Vector Machines and other Kernel-based Learning Methods. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
    • [46] G.M. Foody and A. Mathur, “A relative evaluation of multiclass image classification by support vector machines,” IEEE Transaction of Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1335-1343, June 2004.
    • [47] G. Camps-Valls and L. Bruzzone, Kernel Methods for Remote Sensing Data Analysis (eds), Wiley, Chichester, in press.
    • [48] P. Strobl, R. Richter, F. Lehmann, A. Mueller, B. Zhukov, and D. Oertel, “Preprocessing for the airborne imaging spectrometer DAIS 7915,” SPIE Proceedings, vol. 2758, pp. 375-382, 1996.
    • [49] Aviris NW Indiana‟s Indian Pines, 1992, data set [online]. Available Online: ftp://ftp.ecn.purdue.edu/biehl/MultiSpec/92AV3C.lan (original files) and ftp://ftp.ecn.purdue.edu/biehl/PC_MultiSpec/ThyFiles.zip (ground truth).
    • [50] G.M. Foody and M.K. Arora, “An evaluation of some factors affecting the accuracy of classification by an artificial neural network,” International Journal of Remote Sensing, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 799-810, March 1997.
    • [51] G. M. Foody, A. Mathur, C. Sanchez-Hernandez, D. S. Boyd, “Training set size requirements for the classification of a specific class,” Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 1-14, Sept. 2006.
    • [52] M. Pal and P.M. Mather, “An assessment of the effectiveness of decision tree methods for land cover classification,” Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 554-565, October 2003.
    • [53] T. G. Van Niel, T. R. McVicar, and B. Datt, “On the relationship between training sample size and data dimensionality of broadband multi-temporal classification,” Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 468−480, October 2005.
    • [54] T.G. Dietterich, “Approximate statistical tests for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms,” Neural Computation, vol.10, no. 7, pp. 1895- 1923, October 1998.
    • [55] G.M. Foody, “Thematic map comparison: evaluating the statistical significance of differences in classification accuracy,” Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, vol.70, no. 5, pp.627-633, May 2004.
    • [56] D. G. Altman and J. M. Bland, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” British Medical Journal, vol. 311, pp. 485, Aug. 1995.
    • [58] W.H. Press, Numerical Recipes in C. Cambridge: University Press, 1988.
    • [59] H. Peng, F. Long and C. Ding, “Feature selection based on mutual information: criteria of max-dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1226-1238, August 2005.
    • [60] L. Breiman, “Random forests,” Machine Learning, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 5-32, October 2001.
    • [61] L. Breiman, “Bagging predictors,” Machine Learning, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 123-140, August 1996.
    • [62] R. Díaz-Uriarte and S.A. de Andrés, “Gene selection and classification of microarray data using random forest,” BMC Bioinformatics, 7:3, 2006.
    • [63] C.-W. Hsu, and C.-J. Lin, “A comparison of methods for multi-class support vector machines,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 415-425, March 2002.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article