MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W597090566 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.05.157

A Fuzzy Decision Tree for Processing Satellite Images and Landsat Data

2015· article· en· W597090566 on OpenAlexaff
Feras Al‐Obeidat, Ahmad T. Al‐Taani, Nabil Belacel, Leo Feltrin, Neil R. Banerjee

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDecision treeSatelliteFuzzy logicRemote sensingTree (set theory)Data miningArtificial intelligenceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Satellite and airborne images, including Landsat, ASTER, and Hyperspectral data, are widely used in remote sensing and Geo- graphic Information Systems (GIS) to understand natural earth related processes, climate change, and anthropogenic activity. The nature of this type of data is usually multi or hyperspectral with individual spectral bands stored in raster file structures of large size and global coverage. The elevated number of bands (on the order of 200 to 250 bands) requires data processing algorithms capable of extracting information content, removing redundancy. Conventional statistical methods have been devised to reduce dimension- ality however they lack specific processing to handle data diversity. Hence, in this paper we propose a new data analytic technique to classify these complex multidimensional data cubes. Here, we use a well-known database consisting of multi-spectral values of pixels from satellite images, where the classification is associated with the central pixel in each neighborhood. The goal of our proposed approach is to predict this classification based on the given multi-spectral values. To solve this classification problem, we propose an improved decision tree (DT) algorithm based on a fuzzy approach. More particularly, we introduce a new hybrid classification algorithm that utilizes the conventional decision tree algorithm enhanced with the fuzzy approach. We propose an improved data classification algorithm that utilizes the best of a decision tree and multi-criteria classification. To investigate and evaluate the performance of our proposed method against other DT classifiers, a comparative and analytical study is conducted on well-known Landsat data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia Computer ScienceSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207