Active Ensemble Deep Learning for Polarimetric Synthetic Aperture Radar Image Classification

Although deep learning has achieved great success in the image-classification tasks, its performance is subject to the quantity and quality of the training samples. For the classification of the polarimetric synthetic aperture radar (PolSAR) images, it is nearly impossible to annotate the images fro...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inIEEE geoscience and remote sensing letters Vol. 18; no. 9; pp. 1580 - 1584
Main Authors Liu, Sheng-Jie, Luo, Haowen, Shi, Qian
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Piscataway IEEE 01.09.2021
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE)
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Although deep learning has achieved great success in the image-classification tasks, its performance is subject to the quantity and quality of the training samples. For the classification of the polarimetric synthetic aperture radar (PolSAR) images, it is nearly impossible to annotate the images from visual interpretation. Therefore, it is urgent for remote-sensing scientists to develop new techniques for PolSAR image classification under the condition of very few training samples. In this letter, we take the advantage of active learning and propose active ensemble deep learning (AEDL) for PolSAR image classification. We first show that only 35% of the predicted labels of the deep-learning model's snapshots near its convergence were exactly the same. The disagreement between the snapshots is nonnegligible. From the perspective of multiview learning, the snapshots together serve as a good committee to evaluate the importance of the unlabeled instances. Using the snapshot committee to give out the informativeness of the unlabeled data, the proposed AEDL achieved better performance on two real PolSAR images than the standard active learning strategies. It achieved the same classification accuracy with only 86% and 55% of the training samples compared to the breaking tie active learning and random selection for the Flevoland data set.
ISSN:1545-598X
1558-0571
DOI:10.1109/LGRS.2020.3005076