Author Affiliations
College of Information and Communication Engineering, North University of China, Taiyuan , Shanxi 030051, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Source feature images of airborne LiDAR data. (a) First echo height; (b) last echo height; (c) echo intensity
Fig. 2. Derivative features of airborne LiDAR data. (a) Elevation difference; (b) NDVI; (c) GNDVI
Fig. 3. Relationship between GNDVI and total chlorophyll concentration
[10] Fig. 4. Ridge trust allocation function
Fig. 5. GRNDVI value and classification accuracy change curve. (a) Curves of classification accuracy changes of buildings and roads; (b) curves of classification accuracy changes of trees and grasslands; (c) average classification accuracy
Fig. 6. Classification results of different vegetation indexes based on fuzzy DS. (a) Visible light images; (b) artificial data; (c) classification results based on NDVI and fuzzy DS; (d) classification results based on GNDVI and fuzzy DS; (e) classification results based on GRNDVI and basic DS; (f) classification results based on GRNDVI and fuzzy DS
Feature | Class |
---|
A | B |
---|
| | | HD | T | | IN | | T | GRNDVI | | |
|
Table 1. Complementary sets of distinguishing features
Method | Vegetation index characteristics | Other features | Classification method |
---|
Method 1 | NDVI | DSM、IN、HD | Fuzzy DS | Method 2 | GNDVI | DSM、IN、HD | Fuzzy DS | Method 3 | GRNDVI | DSM、IN、HD | Basic DS | Proposed method | GRNDVI | DSM、IN、HD | Fuzzy DS |
|
Table 2. Comparison groups of different vegetation index characteristics experiments and different DS methods
Method | Building | Tree | Grass | Road | Average value |
---|
Method 1 | 0.8261 | 0.8923 | 0.8866 | 0.8360 | 0.8578 | Method 2 | 0.8506 | 0.8771 | 0.8522 | 0.8998 | 0.8688 | Method 3 | 0.8723 | 0.6443 | 0.7990 | 0.9198 | 0.8141 | Proposed method | 0.8620 | 0.8910 | 0.8864 | 0.9087 | 0.8920 |
|
Table 3. Classification accuracy of data set 1
Method | Building | Tree | Grass | Road | Average value |
---|
Method 1 | 0.8932 | 0.7383 | 0.8679 | 0.8109 | 0.8413 | Method 2 | 0.8921 | 0.7603 | 0.8804 | 0.8272 | 0.8361 | Method 3 | 0.9070 | 0.7141 | 0.8771 | 0.8365 | 0.8442 | Proposed method | 0.9021 | 0.7537 | 0.8804 | 0.8238 | 0.8451 |
|
Table 4. Classification accuracy of data set 2
Method | Building | Tree | Grass | Road | Average value |
---|
Method 1 | 0.8779 | 0.8240 | 0.8592 | 0.8566 | 0.8625 | Method 2 | 0.8757 | 0.8415 | 0.8711 | 0.8711 | 0.8598 | Method 3 | 0.8776 | 0.7978 | 0.8632 | 0.8898 | 0.8613 | Proposed method | 0.8874 | 0.8667 | 0.8344 | 0.8691 | 0.8737 |
|
Table 5. Classification accuracy of data set 3
Method | Building | Tree | Grass | Road | Average value |
---|
Method 1 | 0.8787 | 0.7851 | 0.8535 | 0.8656 | 0.8570 | Method 2 | 0.8805 | 0.8140 | 0.8626 | 0.8824 | 0.8556 | Method 3 | 0.8811 | 0.7699 | 0.8602 | 0.8968 | 0.8560 | Proposed method | 0.8883 | 0.7998 | 0.8604 | 0.8791 | 0.8639 |
|
Table 6. Classification accuracy of data set 4
Method | Building | Tree | Grass | Road | Average value |
---|
Method 1 | 0.8912 | 0.8025 | 0.8755 | 0.8302 | 0.8570 | Method 2 | 0.8934 | 0.8122 | 0.8849 | 0.8444 | 0.8577 | Method 3 | 0.9037 | 0.7714 | 0.8768 | 0.8615 | 0.8544 | Proposed method | 0.9016 | 0.8083 | 0.8866 | 0.8412 | 0.8631 |
|
Table 7. Classification accuracy of data set 5