Mixture Models and the Segmentation of Multimodal Textures
A problem of using mixture-of-Gaussian models for unsupervised texture segmentation is that multimodal textures cannot be well represented by a single Gaussian cluster.
texture↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “texture segmentation mixture models”
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.
A Cluster Grouping Technique for Texture Segmentation
We propose an algorithm for texture segmentation based on a divide-and-conquer strategy of statistical modeling.
texture segmentation mixture models↗
Advances in Hyperspectral Image Classification Methods for Vegetation and Agricultural Cropland Studies
Hyperspectral data are becoming more widely available via sensors on airborne and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) platforms, as well as proximal platforms. While space-based hyperspectral data continue to be limited in availability, multiple spaceborne Earth-observing missions on traditional platforms are scheduled for launch, and companies are experimenting with small satellites for constellations to observe the Earth, as well as for planetary missions. Land cover mapping via classification is one of the most important applications of hyperspectral remote sensing and will increase in significance as time series of imagery are more readily available. However, while the narrow bands of hyperspectral data provide new opportunities for chemistry-based modeling and mapping, challenges remain. Hyperspectral data are high dimensional, and many bands are highly correlated or irrelevant for a given classification problem. For supervised classification methods, the quantity of training data is typically limited relative to the dimension of the input space. The resulting Hughes phenomenon, often referred to as the curse of dimensionality, increases potential for unstable parameter estimates, overfitting, and poor generalization of classifiers. This is particularly problematic for parametric approaches such as Gaussian maximum likelihood–based classifiers that have been the backbone of pixel-based multispectral classification methods. This issue has motivated investigation of alternatives, including regularization of the class covariance matrices, ensembles of weak classifiers, development of feature selection and extraction methods, adoption of nonparametric classifiers, and exploration of methods to exploit unlabeled samples via semi-supervised and active learning. Data sets are also quite large, motivating computationally efficient algorithms and implementations. This chapter provides an overview of the recent advances in classification methods for mapping vegetation using hyperspectral data. Three data sets that are used in the hyperspectral classification literature (e.g., Botswana Hyperion satellite data and AVIRIS airborne data over both Kennedy Space Center and Indian Pines) are described in Section 3.2 and used to illustrate methods described in the chapter. An additional high-resolution hyperspectral data set acquired by a SpecTIR sensor on an airborne platform over the Indian Pines area is included to exemplify the use of new deep learning approaches, and a multiplatform example of airborne hyperspectral data is provided to demonstrate transfer learning in hyperspectral image classification. Classical approaches for supervised and unsupervised feature selection and extraction are reviewed in Section 3.3. In particular, nonlinearities exhibited in hyperspectral imagery have motivated development of nonlinear feature extraction methods in manifold learning, which are outlined in Section 3.3.1.4. Spatial context is also important in classification of both natural vegetation with complex textural patterns and large agricultural fields with significant local variability within fields. Approaches to exploit spatial features at both the pixel level (e.g., co-occurrence–based texture and extended morphological attribute profiles [EMAPs]) and integration of segmentation approaches (e.g., HSeg) are discussed in this context in Section 3.3.2. Recently, classification methods that leverage nonparametric methods originating in the machine learning community have grown in popularity. An overview of both widely used and newly emerging approaches, including support vector machines (SVMs), Gaussian mixture models, and deep learning based on convolutional neural networks is provided in Section 3.4. Strategies to exploit unlabeled samples, including active learning and metric learning, which combine feature extraction and augmentation of the pool of training samples in an active learning framework, are outlined in Section 3.5. Integration of image segmentation with classification to accommodate spatial coherence typically observed in vegetation is also explored, including as an integrated active learning system. Exploitation of multisensor strategies for augmenting the pool of training samples is investigated via a transfer learning framework in Section 3.5.1.2. Finally, we look to the future, considering opportunities soon to be provided by new paradigms, as hyperspectral sensing is becoming common at multiple scales from ground-based and airborne autonomous vehicles to manned aircraft and space-based platforms.
Pasolli, Edoardo↗
Classification Experiments on Real-World Texture
Many papers have been published concerning the analysis of visual texture and yet, very few application domains use texture for image classification. A possible reason for this low transfer of the technology is the lack of experience and testing in real-world imagery. In this paper, we assess the performance of texture-based classification methods on a number of real-world images relevant to autonomous navigation on cross-country terrain and to autonomous geology. Texture analysis will form part of the closed loop that allows a robotic system to navigate autonomously. We have implemented two different classifiers on features extracted by Gabor filter banks. The first classifier models feature distributions for each texture class using a mixture of Gaussians. Classification is performed using Maximum Likelihood. The second classifier represents local statistics using marginal histograms of the features over a region centered on the pixel to be classified. We measure system performance by comparison to ground truth image labels.
image segmentation↗