2013
DOI: 10.1109/lgrs.2012.2203783
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison Between Coherent and Incoherent Similarity Measures in Terms of Crop Inventory

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Consequently, various methods were adapted and used for CD techniques; those are reviewed in (Lu et al, 2004;Radke et al, 2005;Singh, 1989). Existing CD approaches are on the analogy of applied reasoning levels based on various strategies applied by algebraic (Maoguo Gong, Cao et al, 2012;Maoguo Gong et al, 2014;Singh & Talwar, 2014), transformation (Li & Yeh, 1998), classification (Dogan & Perissin, 2014;yousif & Ban, 2014), clustering (Maoguo Gong, Zhou et al, 2012;Shang et al, 2014), statistical methodssimilarity (Chesnokova & Erten, 2013;Inglada & Mercier, 2007) and dissimilarity, probabilistic techniques (Baselice et al, 2014;Hao et al, 2014;Wang et al, 2013;yousif & Ban, 2013), thresholding (Hongtao & Ban, 2014), contour techniques (Mura et al, 2008), fusion methods, machine learning (Bovolo et al, 2010;Celik, 2010;Vijaya Geetha & Kalaivani, 2018), techniques, etc., on the consideration of pixel-and objectbased change map (Hussain et al, 2013) learning by supervised, semi-supervised (Lal & Anouncia, 2015) and unsupervised approaches (Bazi et al, 2005;Bruzzone & Prieto, 2000). However, these approaches are identifying the differences in terms of pixels (Ma et al, 2012) or objects (Shang et al, 2014) to perform information related to single scale.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, various methods were adapted and used for CD techniques; those are reviewed in (Lu et al, 2004;Radke et al, 2005;Singh, 1989). Existing CD approaches are on the analogy of applied reasoning levels based on various strategies applied by algebraic (Maoguo Gong, Cao et al, 2012;Maoguo Gong et al, 2014;Singh & Talwar, 2014), transformation (Li & Yeh, 1998), classification (Dogan & Perissin, 2014;yousif & Ban, 2014), clustering (Maoguo Gong, Zhou et al, 2012;Shang et al, 2014), statistical methodssimilarity (Chesnokova & Erten, 2013;Inglada & Mercier, 2007) and dissimilarity, probabilistic techniques (Baselice et al, 2014;Hao et al, 2014;Wang et al, 2013;yousif & Ban, 2013), thresholding (Hongtao & Ban, 2014), contour techniques (Mura et al, 2008), fusion methods, machine learning (Bovolo et al, 2010;Celik, 2010;Vijaya Geetha & Kalaivani, 2018), techniques, etc., on the consideration of pixel-and objectbased change map (Hussain et al, 2013) learning by supervised, semi-supervised (Lal & Anouncia, 2015) and unsupervised approaches (Bazi et al, 2005;Bruzzone & Prieto, 2000). However, these approaches are identifying the differences in terms of pixels (Ma et al, 2012) or objects (Shang et al, 2014) to perform information related to single scale.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The DI is achieved by comparing two co-registered images by various mathematical functions. In the literature, many comparison methods (Dekker, 1998;Lu, Mausel, Brondizio, & Moran, 2004;Singh, 1989;yousif & Ban, 2014) are available to find the DI such as algebra-based approach (Masroor, Dongmei, Angela, Hui, & David, 2013), transformation-based approach (Li & Yeh, 1998), classification-based approach (Jesus, Arie, & Joost, 2012) and similarity measures (Chesnokova & Erten, 2013). Out of these methods, algebra-based approach is a simple method to find DI which utilizes image differencing (Ma et al, 2012), image rationing, image regression, image correlation and change vector analysis (Sartajvir & Rajneesh, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%