Korean Journal of Remote Sensing (대한원격탐사학회지)

Korean Society of Remote Sensing (대한원격탐사학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Impacts of Decomposition Levels in Wavelet Transform on Anomaly Detection from Hyperspectral Imagery

  • Yoo, Hee Young (Geoinformatic Engineering Research Institute, Inha University) ;
  • Park, No-Wook (Department of Geoinformatic Engineering, Inha University)
  • Received : 2012.10.21
  • Accepted : 2012.11.26
  • Published : 2012.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this paper, we analyzed the effect of wavelet decomposition levels in feature extraction for anomaly detection from hyperspectral imagery. After wavelet analysis, anomaly detection was experimentally performed using the RX detector algorithm to analyze the detecting capabilities. From the experiment for anomaly detection using CASI imagery, the characteristics of extracted features and the changes of their patterns showed that radiance curves were simplified as wavelet transform progresses and H bands did not show significant differences between target anomaly and background in the previous levels. The results of anomaly detection and their ROC curves showed the best performance when using the appropriate sub-band decided from the visual interpretation of wavelet analysis which was L band at the decomposition level where the overall shape of profile was preserved. The results of this study would be used as fundamental information or guidelines when applying wavelet transform to feature extraction and selection from hyperspectral imagery. However, further researches for various anomaly targets and the quantitative selection of optimal decomposition levels are needed for generalization.

Keywords

References

  1. Banerjee, A., P. Burlina, and C. Diehl, 2006. A support vector method for anomaly detection in hyperspectral imagery, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 44(8): 2282-2291. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2006.873019
  2. Bruce, L.M., C.H. Koger, and J. Li, 2002. Dimensionality reduction of hyperspectral data using discrete wavelet transform feature extraction, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 40(10): 2331-2338. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2002.804721
  3. Camps-Valls, G. and L. Bruzzone, 2009. Kernel Methods for Remote Sensing Data Analysis, John Wiely &Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK.
  4. Chang, C.-I. and S.-S. Chiang, 2002. Anomaly detection and classification for hyperspectral imagery, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 40(6): 1314-1325. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2002.800280
  5. Cheung, N., C. Tang, A. Ortega, and C.S. Raghavendra, 2006. Efficient wavelet-based predictive Slepian?.Wolf coding for hyperspectral imagery, Signal Processing, 86(11): 3180-3195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sigpro.2006.03.016
  6. Cochrane, M.A., 2000. Using vegetation reflectance variability for species level classification of hyperspectral data, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 21(10): 2075-2087. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160050021303
  7. Daubechies, I., 1998. Orthonormal Bases of Compactly Supported Wavelet, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 41(7): 906-966.
  8. Fauvel, M., J. Chanussot, and J.A. Benediktsson, 2009. Kernel principal component analysis for the classi?cation of hyperspectral remotesensing data over urban areas, EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, 2009: 1-14.
  9. Gu, Y., Y. Liu, and Y. Zhangm, 2008. A selective KPCA algorithm based on high-order statistics for anomaly detection in hyperspectral imagery, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 5(1): 43-47. https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2007.907304
  10. Igamberdiev, R.M., G. Renzdoerffer, R. Bill, H. Schubert, M. Bachmann, and B. Lennartz, 2011. Determination of chlorophyll content of small water bodies (kettle holes) using hyperspectral airborne data, International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 13: 912-921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2011.04.001
  11. Kurz, T.H., J. Dewit, S.J. Buckley, J.B. Thurmond, and D.W. Hunt, 2012. Hyperspectral image analysis of different carbonate lithologies (limestone, karst and hydrothermal dolomites): the Pozalagua Quarry case study (Cantabria, North-west Spain), Sedimentology, 59(2): 623-645. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01269.x
  12. Kwon, H. and N.M. Nasrabadi, 2005. Kernel RXalgorithm: a nonlinear anomaly detector for hyperspectral imagery, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 43(2): 388- 397. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2004.841487
  13. Muraki, S., 1993. Volume data and wavelet transforms, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 13(4): 50-56. https://doi.org/10.1109/38.219451
  14. Park, N.-W., H.Y., Yoo, J-I., Shin, and K.-S., Lee, 2012. Anomaly Detection from Hyperspectral Imagery using Transform-based Feature Selection and Local Spatial Auto-correlation Index, Korean Journal of Remote Sensing, 28(4): 357-367. https://doi.org/10.7780/kjrs.2012.28.4.2
  15. Reed, I.S. and X. Yu, 1990. Adaptive multiple-band CFAR detection of an optical pattern with unknown spectral distribution. IEEE Transactions on Acoustic, Speech and Signal Processing, 38(10): 1760-1770. https://doi.org/10.1109/29.60107
  16. Rodarmel, C. and J. Shan, 2002. Principal Component Analysis for Hyperspectral Image Classification, Surveying and Land Information Systems, 62(2): 115-123.
  17. Yoo, H.Y., K. Lee, and B.D. Kwon, 2007. Application of the 3D Discrete Wavelet Transformation Scheme to Remotely Sensed Image Classification, Korean Journal of Remote Sensing, 23(5): 355-363. https://doi.org/10.7780/kjrs.2007.23.5.355