Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Classifier”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11

Classifying planetary cloudiness with an updated set of MODIS Cloud Regimes

We present an updated Cloud Regime (CR) dataset based on Moderate resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Collection 6.1 cloud products, specifically joint histograms that partition cloud fraction within distinct combinations of cloud top pressure and cloud optical thickness ranges. The paper focuses on an edition of the CR dataset derived from our own aggregation of MODIS pixel-level cloud retrievals on an equal area grid and pre-specified 3-hour UTC intervals that spatiotemporally match International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) gridded cloud data. The other edition comes from the 1-degree daily aggregation provided by standard MODIS Level-3 data, as in previous versions of the MODIS CRs, for easier use with datasets mapped on equal angle grids. Both editions consist of 11 clusters whose centroids are nearly identical.We provide a physical interpretation of the new CRs and aspects of their climatology that have not been previously examined, such as seasonal and interannual variability of CR frequency of occurrence. We also examine the makeup and precipitation properties of the CRs assisted by independent datasets originating from active observations, and provide a first glimpse of how MODIS CRs relate to clouds as seen by ISCCP.

MODIS↗

A Comprehensive Machine Learning Study to Classify Precipitation Type over Land from Global Precipitation Measurement Microwave Imager (GPM-GMI) Measurements

Precipitation type is a key parameter used for better retrieval of precipitation characteristics as well as to understand the cloud–convection–precipitation coupling processes. Ice crystals and water droplets inherently exhibit different characteristics in different precipitation regimes (e.g., convection, stratiform), which reflect on satellite remote sensing measurements that help us distinguish them. The Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Core Observatory’s microwave imager (GMI) and dual-frequency precipitation radar (DPR) together provide ample information on global precipitation characteristics. As an active sensor, the DPR provides an accurate precipitation type assignment, while passive sensors such as the GMI are traditionally only used for empirical understanding of precipitation regimes. Using collocated precipitation type flags from the DPR as the “truth”, this paper employs machine learning (ML) models to train and test the predictability and accuracy of using passive GMI-only observations together with ancillary information from a reanalysis and GMI surface emissivity retrieval products. Out of six ML models, four simple ones (support vector machine, neural network, random forest, and gradient boosting) and the 1-D convolutional neural network (CNN) model are identified to produce 90–94% prediction accuracy globally for five types of precipitation (convective, stratiform, mixture, no precipitation, and other precipitation), which is much more robust than previous similar effort. One novelty of this work is to introduce data augmentation (subsampling and bootstrapping) to handle extremely unbalanced samples in each category. A careful evaluation of the impact matrices demonstrates that the polarization difference (PD), brightness temperature (Tc) and surface emissivity at high-frequency channels dominate the decision process, which is consistent with the physical understanding of polarized microwave radiative transfer over different surface types, as well as in snow and liquid clouds with different microphysical properties. Furthermore, the view-angle dependency artifact that the DPR’s precipitation flag bears with does not propagate into the conical-viewing GMI retrievals. This work provides a new and promising way for future physics-based ML retrieval algorithm development.

machine learning/artificial intelligence↗

Tracking and Classifying Amazon Fire Events in Near-Real Time

Exceptional fire activity in 2019 sparked concern about Amazon forest conservation. However, the inability to rapidly separate satellite fire detections by fire type hampered fire suppression and assessment of ecosystem and air quality impacts. Here, we describe the development of a near–real-time approach for tracking contributions from deforestation, forest, agricultural, and savanna fires to burned area and emissions and apply the approach to the 2019 fire season in South America. Across the southern Amazon, 19,700 deforestation fire events accounted for 39% of all satellite active fire detections and the majority of fire carbon emissions (63%; 69 Tg C). Multiday fires accounted for 81% of burned area and 92% of carbon emissions from the Amazon, with many forest fires burning uncontrolled for weeks. Most fire detections from deforestation fires were correctly identified within 2 days (67%), highlighting the potential to improve situational awareness and management outcomes during fire emergencies.

Niels Andela↗

Runway Sign Classifier: A DAL C Certifiable Machine Learning System

In recent years, the remarkable progress of Machine Learning (ML) technologies within the domain of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems has presented unprecedented opportunities for the aviation industry, paving the way for further advancements in automation, including the potential for single pilot or fully autonomous operation of large commercial airplanes. However, ML technology faces major incompatibilities with existing airborne certification standards, such as ML model traceability and explainability issues or the inadequacy of traditional coverage metrics. Certification of ML-based airborne systems using current standards is problematic due to these challenges. This paper presents a case study of an airborne system utilizing a Deep Neural Network (DNN) for airport sign detection and classification. Building upon our previous work, which demonstrates compliance with Design Assurance Level (DAL) ”D”, we upgrade the system to meet the more stringent requirements of Design Assurance Level ”C”. To achieve DAL C, we employ an established architectural mitigation technique involving two redundant and dissimilar Deep Neural Networks. The application of novel ML-specific data management techniques further enhances this approach. This work is intended to illustrate how the certification challenges of ML-based systems can be addressed for medium criticality airborne applications.

Flight Software↗

Water Across Synthetic Aperture Radar Data (WASARD): SAR Water Body Classification for the Open Data Cube

The detection of inland water bodies from Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data provides a great advantage over water detection with optical data, since SAR imaging is not impeded by cloud cover. Traditional methods of detecting water from SAR data involves using thresholding methods that can be labor intensive and imprecise. This paper describes Water Across Synthetic Aperture Radar Data (WASARD): a method of water detection from SAR data which automates and simplifies the thresholding process using machine learning on training data created from Geoscience Australia’s WOFS algorithm. Of the machine learning models tested, the Linear Support Vector Machine was determined to be optimal, with the option of training using solely the VH polarization or a combination of the VH and VV polarizations. WASARD was able to identify water in the target area with a correlation of 97% with WOFS. Sentinel-1, Open Data Cube, Earth Observations, Machine Learning, Water Detection 1. INTRODUCTION Water classification is an important function of Earth imaging satellites, as accurate remote classification of land and water can assist in land use analysis, flood prediction, climate change research, as well as a variety of agricultural applications [2]. The ability to identify bodies of water remotely via satellite is immensely cheaper than contracting surveys of the areas in question, meaning that an application that can accurately use satellite data towards this function can make valuable information available to nations which would not be able to afford it otherwise. Highly reliable applications for the remote detection of water currently exist for use with optical satellite data such as that provided by LANDSAT. One such application, Geoscience Australia’s Water Observations from Space (WOFS) has already been ported for use with the Open Data Cube [6]. However, water detection using optical data from Landsat is constrained by its relatively long revisit cycle of 16 days [5], and water detection using any optical data is constrained in that it lacks the ability to make accurate classifications through cloud cover [2]. The alternative solution which solves these problems is water detection using SAR data, which images the Earth using cloud-penetrating microwaves. Because of its advantages over optical data, much research has been done into water detection using SAR data. Traditionally, this has been done using the thresholding method, which involves picking a polarization band and labeling all pixels for which this band’s value is below a certain threshold as containing water. The thresholding method works since water tends to return a much lower backscatter value to the satellite than land [1]. However, this method can be flawed since estimating the proper threshold is often imprecise, complicated, and labor intensive for the end user. Thresholding also tends to use data from only one SAR polarization, when a combination of polarizations can provide insight into whether water is present. [2] In order to alleviate these problems, this paper presents an application for the Open Data Cube to detect water from SAR data using support vector machine (SVM) classification. 2. PLATFORM WASARD is an application for the Open Data Cube, a mechanism which provides a simple yet efficient means of ingesting, storing, and retrieving remote sensing data. Data can be ingested and made analysis ready according to whatever specifications the researcher chooses, and easily resampled to artificially alter a scene’s resolution. Currently WASARD supports water detection on scenes from ESA’s Sentinel-1 and JAXA’s ALOS. When testing WASARD, Sentinel-1 was most commonly used due to its relatively high spatial resolution and its rapid 6 day revisit cycle [5]. With minor alterations to the application's code, however, it could support data from other satellites. 3. METHODOLOGY Using supervised classification, WASARD compares SAR data to a dataset pre-classified by WOFS in order to train an SVM classifier. This classifier is then used to detect water in other SAR scenes outside the training set. Accuracy was measured according to the following metrics:  Precision: a measure of what percentage of the points WASARD labels as water are truly water  Recall: a measure of what percentage of the total water cover WASARD was able to identify.  F1 Score: a harmonic average of the precision and recall scores Both precision and recall are calculated at the end of the training phase, when the trained classifier is compared to a testing dataset. Because the WOFS algorithm’s classifications are used as the truth values when training a WASARD classifier, when precision and recall are mentioned in this paper, they are always with respect to the values produced by WOFS on a similar scene of Landsat data, which themselves have a classification accuracy of 97% [6]. Visual representations of water identified by WASARD in this paper were produced using the function wasard_plot(), which is included in WASARD. 3.1 Algorithm Selection The machine learning model used by WASARD is the Linear Support Vector Machine (SVM). This model uses a supervised learning algorithm to develop a classifier, meaning it creates a vector which can be multiplied by the vector formed by the relevant data bands to determine whether a pixel in a SAR scene contains water. This classifier is trained by comparing data points from selected bands in a SAR scene to their respective labels, which in this case are “water” or “not water” as given by the WOFS algorithm. The SVM was selected over the Random Forest model, which outperformed the SVM in training speed, but had a greater classification time and lower accuracy, and the Multilayer Perceptron Artificial Neural Network, which had a slightly higher average accuracy than the SVM, but much greater training and classification times. Figure 1: Visual representation of the SVM Classifier. Each white point represents a pixel in a SAR scene. In Figure 1, the diagonal line separating pixels determined to be water from those determined not to be water represents the actual classification vector produced by the SVM. It is worth noting that once the model has been trained, classification of pixels is done in a similar manner as in the thresholding method. This is especially true if only one band was used to train the model. 3.1 Feature Selection Sentinel-1 collects data from two bands: the Vertical/Vertical polarization (VV) and the Vertical/Horizontal polarization (VH). When 100 SVM classifiers were created for each polarization individually, and for the combination of the two, the following results were achieved: Figure 2: Accuracy of classifiers trained using different polarization bands. Precision and Recall were measured with respect to the values produced by WOFS. Figure 2 demonstrates that using both the VV and VH bands trades slightly lower recall for significantly greater precision when compared with the VH band alone, and that using the VV band alone is inferior in both metrics. WASARD therefore defaults to using both the VV and VH bands, and includes the option to use solely the VH band. The VV polarization’s lower precision compared to the VH polarization is in contrast to results from previous research and may merit further analysis [4]. 3.2 Training a Classifier The steps in training a classifier with WASARD are 1. Selecting two scenes (one SAR, one optical) with the same spatial extents, and acquired close to each other in time, with a preference that the scenes are taken on the same day. 2. Using the WOFS algorithm to produce an array of the detected water in the scene of optical data, to be used as the labels during supervised learning 3. Data points from the selected bands from the SAR acquisition are bundled together into an array with the corresponding labels gathered from WOFS. A random sample with an equal number of points labeled “Water” and “Not Water” is selected to be partitioned into a training and a testing dataset 4. Using Scikit-Learn’s LinearSVC object, the training dataset is used to produce a classifier, which is then tested against the testing dataset to determine its precision and recall The result is a wasard_classifier object, which has the following attributes: 1. f1, recall, and precision: 3 metrics used to determine the classifier’s accuracy 2. Coefficient: Vector which the SVM uses to make its predictions. The classifier detects water when the dot product of the coefficient and the vector formed by the SAR bands is positive 3. Save(): allows a user to save a classifier to the disk in order to use it without retraining 4. wasard_classify(): Classifies an entire xarray of SAR data using the SVM classifier All of the above steps are performed automatically when the user creates a wasard_classifier object. 3.3 Classifying a Dataset Once the classifier has been created, it can be used to detect water in an xarray of SAR data using wasard_classify(). By taking the dot product of the classifier’s coefficients and the vector formed by the selected bands of SAR data, an array of predictions is constructed. A classifier can effectively be used on the same spatial extents as the ones where it was trained, or on any area with a similar landscape. While

Kreiser, Zachary↗

Identification of aerospace acoustic sources using sparse distributed associative memory

A pattern recognition system has been developed to classify five different aerospace acoustic sources. In this paper the performance of two new classifiers, an associative memory classifier and a neural network classifier, is compared to the performance of a previously designed system. Sources are classified using features calculated from the time and frequency domain. Each classifier undergoes a training period where it learns to classify sources correctly based on a set of known sources. After training the classifier is tested with unknown sources. Results show that over 96 percent of sources were identified correctly with the new associative memory classifier. The neural network classifier identified over 81 percent of the sources correctly.

Scott, E. A.↗

Single-class classification

Often, when classifying multispectral data, only one class or crop is of interest, such as wheat in the Large Area Crop Inventory Experiment (LACIE). Usual procedures for designing a Bayes classifier require that labeled training samples and therefore ground truth be available for the 'class of interest' plus all confusion classes defined by the multispectral data. This paper will consider the problem of designing a two-class Bayes classifier which will classify data into the 'class of interest' or the 'other' classes but will require only labeled training samples from the 'class of interest' to design the classifier. Thus, this classifier minimizes the need for ground truth. For these reasons, the classifier is referred to as a single-class classifier. A procedure for evaluating the overall performance of the single-class classifier in terms of the probability of error will be discussed.

Minter, T. C.↗

Evaluation of several schemes for classification of remotely sensed data: Their parameters and performance

The author has identified the following significant results. Data sets for corn, soybeans, winter wheat, and spring wheat were used to evaluate the following schemes for crop identification: (1) per point Gaussian maximum classifier; (2) per point sum of normal densities classifiers; (3) per point linear classifier; (4) per point Gaussian maximum likelihood decision tree classifiers; and (5) texture sensitive per field Gaussian maximum likelihood classifier. Test site location and classifier both had significant effects on classification accuracy of small grains; classifiers did not differ significantly in overall accuracy, with the majority of the difference among classifiers being attributed to training method rather than to the classification algorithm applied. The complexity of use and computer costs for the classifiers varied significantly. A linear classification rule which assigns each pixel to the class whose mean is closest in Euclidean distance was the easiest for the analyst and cost the least per classification.

Scholz, D.↗