2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jag.2019.101898
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cloud detection algorithm using SVM with SWIR2 and tasseled cap applied to Landsat 8

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(i) If all the training data points in a node belong to the same class, then the node label is assigned as the data label; (ii) If there are different labels in a node, the SVM structure is used to classify the data stored in this node. Furthermore, to evaluate the RFM performance, the true positive rate (TPR; the percentage of positive instances correctly classified), the false positive rate (FPR; the percentage of negative instances misclassified), the false negative rate (FNR; the percentage of positive instances misclassified), and the true negative rate (TNR; the percentage of negative instances correctly classified) can be used [52,65,[78][79][80]. These indices are given by:…”
Section: The Proposed Random Forest Machine (Rfm) For Gis-based Landslide Susceptibility Predictionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(i) If all the training data points in a node belong to the same class, then the node label is assigned as the data label; (ii) If there are different labels in a node, the SVM structure is used to classify the data stored in this node. Furthermore, to evaluate the RFM performance, the true positive rate (TPR; the percentage of positive instances correctly classified), the false positive rate (FPR; the percentage of negative instances misclassified), the false negative rate (FNR; the percentage of positive instances misclassified), and the true negative rate (TNR; the percentage of negative instances correctly classified) can be used [52,65,[78][79][80]. These indices are given by:…”
Section: The Proposed Random Forest Machine (Rfm) For Gis-based Landslide Susceptibility Predictionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These data each have four spectral bands that overlap with those of the Proba-V satellite. Since most multispectral data do not include thermal infrared bands, and Joshi et al [22] proved that clouds can be effectively detected without thermal bands, CECD uses only the top of atmosphere (TOA) reflectance bands ranging from the visible to short-wave infrared bands as inputs for each type of satellite image (Table 2). Because all the spectral bands in Landsat-8 data have a 30-m spatial resolution, the CECD will generate 30-m cloud masks for Landsat-8 data.…”
Section: Datasets and Preprocessingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the F-measure (F.M. ), which is a single class-specific accuracy metric and the complement of the commission, omission, and overall error, was also calculated using a balanced weighting (β = 1) [22,60,61]. Table 3 summarizes the quantitative accuracy results, and Figure 6 illustrates a comparison between the cloud-detection results produced by CECD and FMASK for three typical Landsat-8 scenes and three Sentinel-2 scenes.…”
Section: Comparison With Fmask Cloud-detection Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To avoid manual design and improve the generalization of cloud-detection algorithms, machine-learning techniques that can automatically learn features are applied to clouddetection tasks [35,36], including clustering [37,38], artificial neural networks (ANN) [39,40], random forest (RF) [41,42], support vector machine (SVM) [43][44][45], DL [46][47][48][49][50][51] [52]. The multiscale convolutional feature fusion (MSCFF) cloud-detection method, which integrates multiscale information into convolutional features, was proposed by Zhiwei Li et al [53].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%