| Literature DB >> 35498165 |
Bin Xia1, Fanyu Kong2, Jun Zhou3, Xin Wu1, Qiong Xie1.
Abstract
Aiming at the problems that the traditional remote sensing image classification methods cannot effectively integrate a variety of deep learning features and poor classification performance, a land resource use classification method based on a convolutional neural network (CNN) in ecological remote sensing images is proposed. In this study, a seven-layer convolution neural network is constructed, and then the two fully connected layer features of the improved CNN network training output are fused with the fifth layer pooled layer features after dimensionality reduction by principal component analysis (PCA), so as to obtain an effective remote sensing image feature of land resources based on deep learning. Further, the classification of land resources remote sensing images is completed based on a support vector machine classifier. The remote sensing images of Pingshuo mining area in Shanxi Province are used to analyze the proposed method. The results show that the edge of the recognized image is clear, the classification accuracy, misclassification rate, and kappa coefficient are 0.9472, 0.0528, and 0.9435, respectively, and the model has excellent overall performance and good classification effect.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35498165 PMCID: PMC9050304 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7179477
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Geographical location of the study area.
Figure 2The overall architecture of the proposed method.
Figure 3TReLU function.
System experimental environment parameters.
| Environment | Parameter setting |
|---|---|
| Operating system | Ubuntu16.04 |
| GPU | GTX TITAN X (12G) |
| CPU | Intel E5-2600 v3 |
| Deep learning framework | Tensorflow |
| Memory | 32G |
| Computer language | Python 3.6 |
Figure 4Model training accuracy and loss function.
Figure 5Land classification results.
Figure 6Comparison of cultivated land classification results. (a) Original image. (b) Reference [12]. (c) Reference [15]. (d) Reference [17]. (e) Proposed model.
Evaluation indicator values of four methods.
| Reference [ | Reference [ | Reference [ | Proposed method | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acc | 0.8655 | 0.8907 | 0.9286 | 0.9472 |
| Error | 0.1345 | 0.1093 | 0.0714 | 0.0528 |
|
| 0.8629 | 0.8839 | 0.9193 | 0.9435 |
Figure 7Training and testing time of different methods.