• Laser & Optoelectronics Progress
  • Vol. 59, Issue 16, 1628002 (2022)
Guiling Zhao, Pengnian Li*, Quanrong Guo, and Maolin Tan
Author Affiliations
  • School of Geomatics, Liaoning Technical University, Fuxin 123000, Liaoning , China
  • show less
    DOI: 10.3788/LOP202259.1628002 Cite this Article Set citation alerts
    Guiling Zhao, Pengnian Li, Quanrong Guo, Maolin Tan. Classification of Forest Types using UAV Remote Sensing Images Based on Improved Ant Colony Algorithm[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2022, 59(16): 1628002 Copy Citation Text show less
    Classification effect under test set. (a) Blood; (b) Vehicle; (c) Statlog; (d) Glass; (e) Haberman
    Fig. 1. Classification effect under test set. (a) Blood; (b) Vehicle; (c) Statlog; (d) Glass; (e) Haberman
    Geographical location of the study area
    Fig. 2. Geographical location of the study area
    Gabor filter banks and processing results of different ground features. (a) Filter bank; (b) needle-broad-leaved mixed forest; (c) coniferous forest; (d) broad-leaved forest; (e) bare land; (f) water
    Fig. 3. Gabor filter banks and processing results of different ground features. (a) Filter bank; (b) needle-broad-leaved mixed forest; (c) coniferous forest; (d) broad-leaved forest; (e) bare land; (f) water
    Diagram of owner principal component analysis. (a) Needle-broad-leaved mixed forest; (b) coniferous forest; (c) broad-leaved forest; (d) bare land; (e) water bodies
    Fig. 4. Diagram of owner principal component analysis. (a) Needle-broad-leaved mixed forest; (b) coniferous forest; (c) broad-leaved forest; (d) bare land; (e) water bodies
    5 types of ground feature samples. (a) Needle-broad-leaved mixed forest; (b) coniferous forest; (c) broad-leaved forest; (d) bare land; (e) water
    Fig. 5. 5 types of ground feature samples. (a) Needle-broad-leaved mixed forest; (b) coniferous forest; (c) broad-leaved forest; (d) bare land; (e) water
    Confusion matrix of recognition results without texture features
    Fig. 6. Confusion matrix of recognition results without texture features
    Confusion matrix of recognition results under GLMC feature
    Fig. 7. Confusion matrix of recognition results under GLMC feature
    Confusion matrix of recognition results under Gabor feature
    Fig. 8. Confusion matrix of recognition results under Gabor feature
    GroupCategoryNumber of categoriesNumber of instancesData length
    1Blood24748
    2Vehicle213270
    3Statlog34150
    4Glass69214
    5Haberman23306
    Table 1. Public dataset properties
    CategoryAlgorithmcγPrecision /%Running time /s
    BloodABC-SVM4.92570.286277.154.13
    GA-SVM4.53290.872577.425.26
    ACO-SVM8.35130.909777.7810.07
    VehicleABC-SVM3.37830.794583.675.30
    GA-SVM6.18110.618484.683.86
    ACO-SVM9.04130.991286.697.82
    StatlogABC-SVM3.48800.848992.022.50
    GA-SVM7.83370.454690.082.35
    ACO-SVM9.36140.899296.004.92
    GlassABC-SVM9.82560.525598.832.17
    GA-SVM6.08690.557898.241.75
    ACO-SVM9.35350.658999.414.98
    HabermanABC-SVM4.21380.975877.72.39
    GA-SVM7.48410.678675.83.25
    ACO-SVM8.57610.950378.36.08
    Table 2. Optimal classification results of five data sets
    AlgorithmNumber of samplesNumber of correctly classified samplesNumber of incorrectly classified samplesOverall accuracy /%
    ACO-SVM2001623881
    GA-SVM2001584279
    ABC-SVM2001574378.5
    SVM2001495174.5
    Table 3. Recognition accuracy of different classification models
    Guiling Zhao, Pengnian Li, Quanrong Guo, Maolin Tan. Classification of Forest Types using UAV Remote Sensing Images Based on Improved Ant Colony Algorithm[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2022, 59(16): 1628002
    Download Citation