The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Sciences 23 (2020) 49–55

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Sciences

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Research Paper

Analysis of uncertainty ratio in classified imagery using independent

indicator entropy
Ranjana Sharma a,⇑, P.K. Garg a, R.K. Dwivedi b
a
Uttarakhand Technical University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
b
CCSIT, Teerthnakar Mahaveer University, Moradabad, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Image classification of satellite imagery interprets the thematic map to represent the spatial distribution
Received 13 November 2017 of earth features. There are so many applications of Remote sensing image classification such as Resource
Revised 31 March 2018 utilization and environmental impact analysis etc. The overall process result depends on two main
Accepted 26 April 2018
aspects (1) Every object have distinctive signature and feature of interest (2) The process can distinguish
Available online 18 December 2018
these features separately. Image classification is broadly classified in two ways (1) Hard classification and
(2) Soft classification. In hard classification, pixels are classified in to a single class only and in soft clas-
Keywords:
sification, pixels can belong to one or more classes according to their membership values. In hard classi-
Hard classification
Soft classification Fuzzy C-Means
fication, data may lost because of the restriction being in a single class only. But in soft classification, this
Accuracy problem is resolved. But after resolving the problem, there is a need of accuracy assessment. There are
Entropy many commercial software available in market but they are not providing accuracy assessment for soft
classified images. So, in this study, a tool is designed to overcome such a problem.
Ó 2018 National Authority for Remote Sensing and Space Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier
B. V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Remote sensing is a science by which we gather the information
of the surface of the earth. But those image or data captured by
satellite belong to the multi-classes. In terms of hard classification,
it supports a data which belong to a single class. But there is some
amount of data loss in hard classification, (Bora and Gupta, 2014)
and this problem is overcome by using soft classification. The pro-
cess of multispectral satellite classification (Wojtaszek et al., 2015)
may be performed by any of the two approaches namely; super-
vised and unsupervised techniques. In supervised classification
approach (Tamouk et al., 2013; Stein, 2002) (Kalra et al., 2013),
the analyst classifies the image on the basis of known information
referred to as training data. This stage is also called signature anal-
ysis. In supervised classification, training data plays a vital role. It
provides a blue print on which a classifier assigns a pixel to its
information class. In unsupervised classification, it is based on
some natural spectral properties or some parameter, i.e. (Dwivedi
et al., 2012) (Dwivedi et al., 2012a,b,c), the image is converted into
Peer review under responsibility of National Authority for Remote Sensing and
Space Sciences.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sharmaranjana04@gmail.com (R. Sharma), principal.computers@
tmu.ac.in (R.K. Dwivedi).
a cluster, whose identity is not known. Then this cluster is con-
verted into information classes by the analyst. Thus the definition
of the cluster is based on some spectral property of the object
hence it is known as spectral class (See Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
The remote sensing image includes a combination of varied and
pure pixels. In digital image taxonomy, image or a pixel is habitu-
ally measured like a unit belongs to only land cover category. How-
ever, due to constricted image resolution, pixel often represents
ground area, which consists of more than single isolated land cover
classes. For this cause, it has been considered that fuzziness should
be accommodated in the categorization technique so that pixels
may have multiple or partial class membership (Foody, 1996). In
this case, a determine of the strong point of membership or rela-
tionship for every class is output by the classifier, resultant in a soft
classification technique (Yannis and Stefanos, 1999). A unsurpris-
ing ‘hard’ classification technique, which allocates each pixel to a
explicit class, is often unsuitable for application where miscella-
neous pixels are profuse in the image (Jabari and Zhang, 2013).
Some of the commercially available digital image processing
software, such as, Environment for Visualizing Images (ENVI),
Earth Resource Data Analysis System (ERDAS), Earth Resource
Mapping software (ER Mapper) and IDRISI do not provide any cor-
responding accuracy measures for soft classified output of their
evaluation. So, in this study, a tool is designed to overcome such

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2018.04.007
1110-9823/Ó 2018 National Authority for Remote Sensing and Space Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B. V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
50 R. Sharma et al. / Egypt. J. Remote Sensing Space Sci. 23 (2020) 49–55

Table 1
AWIFS entropy of various land cover classes fromFCM classification output.

Value of weighting Agriculture bright forest dense forest Agriculture dry Agriculture moist Water Body
exponent ‘m’ land without crop land without crop
1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.3 0 0 0.495736 0 0 0
1.5 0.005647 0.720945 0.534943 0.849842 0.005647 0
1.7 0.005647 0.940597 0.55884 0.917775 0.005647 0
1.9 0.005647 0.946659 0.595714 0.93509 0.005647 0
2.1 0.005647 0.964547 0.602791 0.93509 0.005647 0.005647
2.3 1.38439 1.019735 0.702469 0.962081 0.577753 0.005647
2.5 1.387307 1.023428 0.900355 0.968725 0.972232 0.005647
2.7 1.422581 1.024072 0.995434 0.989274 0.974703 0.005647
2.9 1.465228 1.16432 0.996447 0.995646 0.995284 0.005647
3.1 1.493104 1.184123 1.066264 0.998234 1.053199 0.005647
3.3 1.493358 1.205585 1.095643 1.008455 1.073952 0.569343
3.5 1.512936 1.367753 1.103139 1.058969 1.111597 0.766624
3.7 1.519854 1.376267 1.119413 1.071822 1.11494 0.892742
3.9 1.612968 1.438993 1.130291 1.13704 1.117274 1.013136
4.1 1.663884 1.445044 1.130666 1.170324 1.150236 1.273812
4.3 1.691301 1.462781 1.133814 1.195284 1.151883 1.348145
4.5 1.698294 1.536436 1.143974 1.22129 1.204915 1.395559
4.7 1.746609 1.652529 1.199743 1.372729 1.246343 1.404513
4.9 1.874828 1.742236 1.469495 1.422326 1.248483 1.474453

Table 2
AWIFS entropy of various land cover classes from PCM classification output.

Value of weighting Agriculture bright forest dense forest Agriculture dry land Agriculture moist Water Body
exponent ‘m’ without crop crop land without crop
1.1 0.005647 0.36168 0.016873 0.279126 0.108342 0
1.3 0.005647 0.736859 0.512143 1.767634 0.148719 0
1.5 1.008899 1.367815 1.447699 1.889342 0.351796 0
1.7 1.332126 1.913278 1.612615 1.897806 1.045161 0.351796
1.9 1.793768 2.129041 2.208572 1.920896 1.703991 0.577753
2.1 1.807699 2.195618 2.221909 1.949309 2.128516 1.367815
2.3 2.03947 2.237211 2.305633 2.15875 2.161046 2.408816
2.5 2.154334 2.282122 2.311104 2.175264 2.175324 2.487444
2.7 2.318824 2.364098 2.390271 2.232623 2.292079 2.602326
2.9 2.374509 2.464817 2.526811 2.246321 2.332821 2.626207
3.1 2.468744 2.527438 2.623165 2.261637 2.335784 2.627086
3.3 2.529209 2.562386 2.641661 2.30133 2.361684 2.627868
3.5 2.568626 2.570972 2.674099 2.303361 2.374183 2.664065
3.7 2.590673 2.652589 2.676686 2.363675 2.386289 2.755612
3.9 2.711469 2.662441 2.701554 2.375425 2.410978 2.779426
4.1 2.745753 2.709625 2.722828 2.399415 2.421417 2.794549
4.3 2.7703 2.722492 2.724241 2.402557 2.461279 2.811444
4.5 2.808867 2.742046 2.735318 2.535892 2.467631 2.825221
4.7 2.850825 2.76393 2.769084 2.537501 2.504708 2.830153
4.9 2.884434 2.807124 2.787544 2.584822 2.523186 2.857571

Table 3
LISS-III entropy of various land cover classes from FCM classification output.

Value of weighting Agriculture bright forest dense forest Agriculture dry Agriculture moist Water Body
exponent ‘m’ land without crop land without crop
1.1 0.005647 0.005647 0 0.005647 0.005647 0
1.3 0.005647 0.005647 0.005647 0.005647 0.005647 0
1.5 0.779405 0.005647 0.005647 0.005647 0.438642 0.005647
1.7 0.931645 0.005647 0.005647 0.005647 0.763175 0.005647
1.9 1.127571 0.391921 0.005647 0.005647 0.763175 0.013378
2.1 1.232044 0.511249 0.563636 0.438642 0.809914 0.024543
2.3 1.32687 0.542586 0.563636 0.791327 0.941826 0.034452
2.5 1.65215 0.569752 0.72791 0.807417 0.941826 0.062745
2.7 1.688436 0.655321 0.969694 0.873741 1.221659 0.241127
2.9 1.754213 0.676722 1.039694 0.937978 1.301497 0.328685
3.1 1.757718 0.847891 1.279952 0.937978 1.377741 0.648482
3.3 1.778683 1.200501 1.282442 1.178673 1.475438 0.735558
3.5 1.819449 1.270168 1.313101 1.390446 1.605331 0.763175
3.7 1.922052 1.447138 1.388364 2.262668 1.721545 0.842982
3.9 1.929977 1.921122 1.460901 2.41688 1.728667 0.996078
4.1 2.03713 1.922168 1.579467 2.431606 1.759878 1.221659
4.3 2.105483 2.009728 1.873025 2.462514 1.852669 1.721545
4.5 2.17118 2.010089 1.878813 2.514286 1.93608 1.852669
4.7 2.195477 2.019947 1.889476 2.555636 1.978665 2.431606
4.9 2.267225 2.08969 1.930662 2.566581 1.996702 2.514286
 R. Sharma et al. / Egypt. J. Remote Sensing Space Sci. 23 (2020) 49–55 51

Table 4
LISS-III entropy of various land cover classes from PCM classification output.

Value of weighting Agriculture bright forest dense forest Agriculture dry Agriculture moist Water Body
exponent ‘m’ land without crop land without crop
1.1 0.082956 0.312832 0.145562 0.261924 0.005647 0.060872
1.3 0.082956 0.318478 0.191696 0.261924 0.005647 0.060872
1.5 0.129719 0.318478 0.347175 0.261924 0.005647 0.060872
1.7 0.164975 0.318478 0.347175 0.261924 0.005647 0.060872
1.9 0.280546 0.318478 0.347175 0.261924 0.005647 0.060872
2.1 0.291772 0.318478 0.347175 0.261924 0.005647 0.060872
2.3 0.291772 0.318478 0.347175 0.261924 0.005647 0.066268
2.5 0.291772 0.318478 0.347175 0.261924 0.011271 0.082318
2.7 0.291772 0.318478 0.347175 0.45811 0.011271 0.144367
2.9 0.291772 0.411208 0.347175 0.45811 0.011271 0.169177
3.1 0.291772 0.411208 0.347175 0.45811 0.011271 0.183759
3.3 0.291772 0.411208 0.476853 0.45811 0.011271 0.19811
3.5 0.653291 0.411208 0.476853 0.45811 0.011271 0.221505
3.7 0.768366 0.411208 0.476853 0.511747 0.011271 0.266277
3.9 0.768366 0.422434 0.529408 0.511747 0.011271 0.266277
4.1 0.768366 0.422434 0.529408 0.511747 0.011271 0.362017
4.3 0.768366 0.568146 0.529408 0.511747 0.033543 0.369201
4.5 0.768366 0.568146 0.529408 0.511747 0.033543 0.383181
4.7 0.768366 0.568146 0.529408 0.511747 0.033543 0.433711
4.9 0.768366 0.568146 0.529408 0.511747 0.033543 0.491744

Table 5
LISS-IV entropy of various land cover classes from FCM classification output.

Value of weighting Agriculture bright forest dense forest Agriculture dry Agriculture moist Water Body
exponent ‘m’ land without crop land without crop
1.1 0.005647 0.005647 0 0.005647 0 0.005647
1.3 0.005647 0.005647 0 0.005647 0 0.005647
1.5 0.833044 0.881731 0.005647 0.005647 0.334012 1.040795
1.7 0.93792 0.935478 0.90618 0.90618 0.455002 1.090845
1.9 0.996273 0.987775 1.038942 1.038942 0.493181 1.162071
2.1 1.023482 1.020236 1.094468 1.094468 0.532189 1.171888
2.3 1.060396 1.082032 1.171339 1.171339 0.534927 1.185138
2.5 1.072108 1.14259 1.179385 1.179385 0.568189 1.202948
2.7 1.160526 1.150218 1.181608 1.181608 0.578827 1.234024
2.9 1.165481 1.150845 1.191133 1.191133 0.77937 1.240439
3.1 1.178855 1.185337 1.212169 1.212169 0.883868 1.250455
3.3 1.192471 1.196408 1.226577 1.226577 0.947835 1.361682
3.5 1.215419 1.20713 1.244597 1.244597 0.968205 1.362615
3.7 1.244101 1.216975 1.255464 1.255464 1.166506 1.38732
3.9 1.322855 1.307276 1.265672 1.265672 1.195226 1.400067
4.1 1.341925 1.405059 1.269796 1.269796 1.271948 1.413906
4.3 1.352694 1.44459 1.313847 1.313847 1.271948 1.429775
4.5 1.380341 1.476362 1.338663 1.338663 1.351788 1.437714
4.7 1.417581 1.670922 1.371591 1.371591 1.432229 1.465357
4.9 1.431856 1.687325 1.436047 1.436047 1.456061 2.045423

Table 6
LISS-IV entropy of various land cover classes from PCM classification output.

Value of weighting Agriculture bright forest dense forest Agriculture dry Agriculture moist Water Body
exponent ‘m’ land without crop land without crop
1.1 0.85321 0.720505 0.888267 0.260393 1.047761 0
1.3 1.323762 0.883429 0.938212 0.421313 1.065395 0
1.5 1.333846 0.897783 0.941301 0.425412 1.074278 0.94433
1.7 1.421579 0.921517 0.967753 0.469295 1.079864 0.96242
1.9 1.436194 0.983435 0.969124 0.505332 1.136726 1.073354
2.1 1.45772 1.016671 0.990967 0.532614 1.251742 1.115397
2.3 1.470837 1.027519 1.025035 0.538193 1.263018 1.245537
2.5 1.48336 1.033031 1.025814 0.54505 1.347871 1.343562
2.7 1.598708 1.044512 1.111484 0.587383 1.356683 1.370217
2.9 1.607408 1.060002 1.200183 0.654696 1.362125 1.370722
3.1 1.610917 1.070653 1.20429 0.675792 1.371783 1.382169
3.3 1.612705 1.121911 1.250014 0.719147 1.377224 1.41307
3.5 1.634205 1.292061 1.256776 0.86282 1.380859 1.413125
3.7 1.673346 1.324348 1.323268 0.903478 1.394449 1.491635
3.9 1.713578 1.338266 1.323954 1.349272 1.397588 1.593333
4.1 1.767147 1.488573 1.515676 1.477019 1.397771 1.599144
4.3 1.830625 1.614532 1.589824 1.570496 1.405531 1.688358
4.5 1.839581 1.668217 1.684392 2.452745 1.436348 1.719099
4.7 1.845379 1.893284 1.717801 2.487226 1.438385 1.798186
4.9 1.898212 1.977909 1.743392 2.994849 1.464893 1.882124
52 R. Sharma et al. / Egypt. J. Remote Sensing Space Sci. 23 (2020) 49–55

Table 7
Entropy variation for FCM Classifier.

Classifiers used for various FCM Classifier

land cover classes AWiFS Entropy LISS-III Entropy LISS-IV Entropy
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Agriculture 0 at m = 1.1 1.8 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 2.26 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 2.12 at m = 4.9
Bright forest 0 at m = 1.1 1.7 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 2.08 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 2.26 at m = 4.9
Dense forest 0 at m = 1.1 1.4 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 1.93 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 2.06 at m = 4.9
Agriculture dry land without crop 0 at m = 1.1 1.4 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 2.56 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 2.07 at m = 4.9
Agriculture moist land without crop 0 at m = 1.1 1.2 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 1.99 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 2.50 at m = 4.9
Water Body 0 at m = 1.1 1.4 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 2.51 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 1.94 at m = 4.9

Table 8
Entropy variation for PCM Classifier.

Classifiers used for various PCM Classifier

land cover classes AWiFS Entropy LISS-III Entropy LISS-IV Entropy
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Agriculture 0 at m = 1.1 2.08 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 0.76 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 1.89 at m = 4.9
Bright forest 0 at m = 1.1 2.80 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 0.56 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 1.97 at m = 4.9
Dense forest 0 at m = 1.1 2.78 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 0.52 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 1.74 at m = 4.9
Agriculture dry land without crop 0 at m = 1.1 2.58 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 0.51 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 2.99 at m = 4.9
Agriculture moist land without crop 0 at m = 1.1 2.52 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 0.03 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 1.46 at m = 4.9
Water Body 0 at m = 1.1 2.85at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 0.49 at m = 4.9 0 at m = 1.1 1.88 at m = 4.9

problems, and the software package developed consists of fuzzy, Ghosh (Kumar et al., 2007) have focused primarily on Support
entropy and based soft classification approaches (Sharma et al., Vector Machine (SVM) and statistical based learning algorithms.
2016, 2017) and has been named as Fuzzy Based classifiers None of these have provided the hybridized model of classification
incorporating Entropy and Noise (FBICET). In general, none of the to incorporate context, entropy, and noise. Further, this tool
commercially available software has incorporated entropy and provides an automated image to image accuracy assessment
contextual based hybridization and SCM based approach to assess approach using entropy.
the accuracy of a classified image. Further, such software packages
provide an option for entropy for multi-spectral remote sensing
3. Programming environment
data at sub-pixel classification. Thus, in this study, it was necessary
to develop a package having the sub-pixel classification algorithms
The coding of Fuzzy Based Image Classification Entropy based
used for different experiments.
package has been done in Java environment. Two types of pro-
We can use FCM (Bezdek et al., 1984) and PCM soft classifiers
grams can be created: applications and applets by Java. The output
(Krishnapuram and Keller, 1993) (Krishnapuram and Keller,
of a Java compiler is not an executable code; rather it is called a
1996) in both modes i.e., unsupervised and supervised, but in this
byte-code. There is an interpreter in java runtime system which
research these classifiers are applied in supervised mode only. This
is used to convert the program into byte code. It is simply a highly
paper is paying attention on the study of an implementation of
capable means of programming a program into byte code. It is
FCM (Fuzzy c-mean) with the tool. This tool plays a vital role in
much easier to permit Java programs to run in a wide selection
term of classification and accuracy assessment approach.
of environments. Therefore, all class objects are dynamically allo-
cated. When there are no references to an object, then the object
2. The requirement of tool is considered as dormant. This tool is platform independent, due
to the JAVA environment.
In present arena of digital image processing software, various
kinds of readymade tools are available to perform digital image
4. Study area and data set
analysis. Since last two decades, a large number of image
processing software has been developed by various commercial
Sitarganj Tehsil (Udham Singh Nagar District, Uttarakhand) area
companies offering a suite of modules related to data input, visual-
is selected for this study. The entropy and fraction images play vital
ization, image enhancement, transformation, classification and
role in term of accuracy assessment and classification.
assessment of accuracy. Some of the leading image processing soft-
ResourceSat-1 (IRS-P6), satellite gives distinctive information and
ware is ERDAS IMAGINE, IDRISI, ENVI, ER MAPPER and e-Cognition.
multi-spectral data at special spatial resolution, while preserving
Similarly, some individual based soft classification have been
the spectral information. AWiFS, LISS-III and LISS-IV of
developed, such as Soft Classification Methods and Accuracy
Resourcesat-1 provide data at spatial resolution of 60 m, 20 m
Assessment Package (SCMAP) developed by Aziz (2004) and Sub-
and 5 m respectively, and they have been used for classification
pixel Multispectral Image Classifier (SMIC) developed by Kumar
or reference fraction images generation in this study shown in
and Gosh (Kumar et al., 2007), which facilitate the image classifica-
Fig. 1.
tion based upon statistical learning algorithms and assessment of
accuracy using FERM only. However, these tools are not able to ful-
fill the objectives defined for this study. The need of tool: Fuzzy 5. Different modules of the package
Based Image Classifier incorporating Entropy and Noise has
emerged, in order to incorporate the entropy and noise in the pro- The software package has five basic modules with main package
cess of satellite image classification. Aziz (2004) incorporated the mentioned as follows, and shown in Fig. 2;
Neural Network based classifier in the study, wherein Kumar and Classification approaches used in this study.
 R. Sharma et al. / Egypt. J. Remote Sensing Space Sci. 23 (2020) 49–55 53

Fig. 1. Location of study area.

Fig. 3. Reading pixel’s address.

Fig. 2. The front window of this tool.

1) File Module
2) Display Module
3) Signature Files Module
4) Classifiers Module
5) Help Module

5.1. Data input module or file module

This module provides various options related to read, display

and saving of file operations. One of the distinctive aspects incor-
porated as regards analysis of a file is that, any number of bands
in a file can be read concurrently. Thus, high dimensionality data
sets can be read and display on the screen. This system reads the
input multi-spectral image in a generic file (Band Interleaved by
Line) BIL format and extracts the rows/columns information from
corresponding header file. As different remote sensing satellites
(Tamouk et al., 2013; Tso and Mather, 2001) have multi-spectral
data in different bands as well as different rows/columns, the sys-
tem dynamically allocates memory to its variables.
The GUI of the main window of the package with input data file
module is shown in Fig. 3. This module has three options, i.e. OPEN
for opening a file, SAVE for saving file information and EXIT pro-
vides the way to leave the program. This module has three opera-
tions, namely, FCC for generation of false color composite,
ENHANCEMENT for linear enhancement, ZOOM IN AND ZOOM
OUT for displaying image at different zoom factor in Fig. 4. The
FCC option shown in Fig. 5 allows the user to create a False Color
Fig. 4. The main window of the package with file module.
Composite, while Zoom in and Zoom out allows the user to enlarge
or reduce the image view respectively. Both Zoom operations can
also be performed with right mouse button, or alternately from
the dropdown menu box. The enhancement function allows the
user to carry out a simple linear enhancement in order to have a
good contrast of the image, while collecting reference data infor-
mation. As the mouse is moved over the displayed image, the
row and column of that pixel is displayed.
5.2. Signature file module
This module allows the user to create reference data, both pure
and mixed in nature. The reference data can then be used for any of
54 R. Sharma et al. / Egypt. J. Remote Sensing Space Sci. 23 (2020) 49–55

Start

Input multi-spectral Image

Pure pixel in training Stage

Compute FCM Parameter

Fig. 5. GUI of display module.

For pixel 1 to N

Calculate membership value

Write class proportion to file

End of Image file

Fig. 6. The GUI for various options available for collecting pure signature data. Stop

the ten sub-pixel classifiers as provided in FBICET package shown Fig. 7. Flow chart for FCM classification.
in Fig. 6. The signature option, allows the user to collect pure ref-
erence pixels so that it can be used as an input by any of the
sub-pixel classifiers provided in this package.
Three norms, namely; Euclidean, Diagonal and Mahalonobis
norms, each induced by specific weight matrix have been incorpo-
rated in D-Matrix, V-C Matrix and DVC Matrix, respectively. How-
ever, in this study only D-Matrix with value 1 has been used for the
classification of satellite imagery.

5.3. Classifier module

This module is the main module of this software package. It

provides the options of classifying the input image on the basis
of the training data sets described in Fig. 5. In this module, fuzzy
set based on soft classifiers namely FCM has been used.
There is also an option for saving the membership values gener-
Fig. 8. Read signature value by this tool for FCM.
ated through sub-pixel classifier option using any ten combination
of classification algorithms incorporated in the FBICET package.
Sub-pixel classification option is shown in Fig. 5. As mentioned
in Fig. 6, the following classifiers from three different theories have
been implemented in this study. But only Fuzzy set theory based
soft classifier Fuzzy c-Means (FCM) classifier has been chosen for
finding the result shown in Figs. 7 and 8.

6. Methodology

Uncertainty reduction process for soft classification required

classified fraction images and reference classified fraction images
(if available), perform sampling over classified data, apply accuracy
assessment method on sampled data and finally produces accuracy
Saha et al. (2010) parameters. Accuracy assessment method of sub-
pixel categorization is also Conrad data, such as FERM, SCM, MIN-
PROD error matrix, RMSE and Entropy. It is known that these
methods required reference data accept entropy. Entropy is an Fig. 9. Block diagram for accuracy assessment of soft Classifier used.
 R. Sharma et al. / Egypt. J. Remote Sensing Space Sci. 23 (2020) 49–55
absolute indicator for uncertainty and does not require any refer-
ence data, there are numerous methods accessible to access uncer-
tainty of soft classify n for my study. Accuracy measure process
takes account only these samples to evaluate accuracy parameters.
Accuracy assessment process for soft classification required
classified fraction images and reference classified fraction images
(if available), perform sampling over classified data, apply accuracy
assessment method on sampled data and finally produces accuracy
parameters Fig. 9.
7. Results, analysis and disscussion
7.1. General working of FCM and PCM with entropy classifier in FBICET
package
7.1.1. Accuracy assessment using entropy
Uncertainly, the accuracy can be visualized by Entropy. It is an
absolute indicator of uncertainty for image classification i.e. when
classes is evenly proportioned within pixel then higher entropy
occur, that shows higher uncertainty and vice versa (Dehghan
and Ghassemian, 2006). This approach is capable to summarize
the classification of uncertainty in a single. The entropy may be
computed from (Zhang and Foody, 2001),
X
C   Krishnapuram, R., Keller, J.M., 1993. A possiblistic approach to clustering. IEEE
H¼ lij log2 lij ð1Þ
i¼1
where c is the total no of classes and lij is the estimated member-
ship function of class c for pixel x. The entropy of each pixel is
summed over all pixels to compute the average entropy of the
whole classification. Constraint is that class memberships of a pixel
across the classes should sum to one.
8. Conclusion
In this paper, it is defined to use classifiers FCM and Euclidean
norm for generating fraction result. This outcome is generated
from LISS-III image of IRS-P6 data. We already know that the clas-
sification method is complete with the assessment of accuracy so
Entropy has been used as the assessment of accuracy for various
land cover classes, i.e., agriculture land, dense forest, water bodies,
agriculture moist land without crop, and agriculture dry land
without crop. The objective of this research is to investigate, the
amount of accuracy or uncertainty create for spatial data. This
paper proposed the estimating model of spatial data. In brief, this
research, on spatial variation has analyzed the total uncertainty
which is not exceeding the reference value. In such cases, entropy
can be used as an absolute measure of an uncertainty (Dehghan
and Ghassemian, 2006). This indicates that the information of
uncertainty is not exceeding more than 3% (the computed entropy
result has been given in table 1,3,5,7 for FCM and 2,4,6,8 for PCM
classifiers. Measuring the spatial statistics of a satellite image
using entropy, for six land cover classes can be obtained by using
Eq (1) i. e. 6*(1/6*log21/6) = 2.585 (Stein, 2002). So the working
55
of the tool is appropriate, however it needs to be tested for other
classes also before drawing a concrete conclusion.
References
Aziz, M.A., 2004. Evaluation of soft classifiers for remote sensing data, unpublished
Ph.D thesis. Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India.
Bezdek, J.C., Ehrlich, R., Full, W., 1984. FCM: The fuzzy c- meansclustering algorithm.
Comput. Geosci. 10, 191–203.
Bora, D.J., Gupta A.K., 2014. A Comparative study Between Fuzzy Clustering
Algorithm and Hard Clustering Algorithm. Int. J. Computer Trends Technol.
(IJCTT) 10(2), ISSN: 2231-2803, 108–113.
Dwivedi, R., Kumar, A., Ghosh, S.K., Roy, P., 2012. Optimization of Fuzzy Based Soft
Classifiers for Remote Sensing Data. ISP International Archives of the
Photogrammetric, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 1, 385–
390.
Dwivedi, R.K., Ghosh, S.K., Kumar, A., 2012. Study of Fuzzy based Classifier
Parameter across Spatial Resolution. Int. J. Comput. Appl. (0975–8887) 50(11),
17–24
Dwivedi, R.K., Ghosh, S.K., Kumar, A., 2012. Investigation of Image Classification
Techniques For Performance Enhancement. Viewpoint. Int. J. Manage. Technol.
ISSN-2229-3825. 3(1), 3–10
Foody, G.M., 1996. Approaches for the production and evaluation of fuzzy land
cover classifications from remotely-sensed data. Int. J. Remote Sensing 17 (7),
1317–1340.
Jabari, S., Zhang, Y., 2013. Very High Resolution Satellite Image Classification Using
Fuzzy Rule-Based Systems. Algorithms 6, 762–781. https://doi.org/10.3390/
a6040762, ISSN 1999-4893, Pg Np. 763-781.
Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 1, 98–108.
Krishnapuram, R., Keller, J.M., 1996. The possibilistic c-means algorithm: Insights
andrecommendations. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 4 (3), 385–393.
Kalra, K., Goswami, A.K., Gupta, R., 2013. A comparative study of supervised image
Classification algorithms for satellite images. Int. J. Electrical Electronics Data
Commun. ISSN: 2320-2084, 1(10)
Kumar, A., Ghosh, S.K., Dadhwal, V.K., 2007. Full fuzzy land cover mapping using
remote sensing data based on fuzzy c-means and density estimation. Can. J.
Remote sensing 33 (2), 81–87.
Dehghan, H., Ghassemian, H., 2006. Measurement of uncertainty by the entropy:
application to the classification of MSS data. Int. J. Remote Sensing 27 (18),
4005–4014.
Ranjana Sharma, Achal Kumar Goyal, Dwivedi R.K., 2016. A Review of Soft
Classification Approaches on Satellite Image and Accuracy Assessment. In:
Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Soft Computing for Problem
Solving, Springer singapore, vol. 437, pp. 629–639.
Ranjana sharma, Dwivedi, R.K., Garg, P.K., 2017. Performance analysis of FCM and
PCM soft classifiers for Satellite data. In: Proceedings of the SMART–2017, IEEE
Conference ID: 42281, 6th International Conference on System Modeling &
Advancement in Research Trends, 29th–30th December, 2017, pp. 133–138.
Saha, I., Maulik, U., Bandyopadhyay, S., Plewczynsk, D., 2010. Unsupervised and
Supervised learning approaches together for Microarray Analysis. Fundamental
Informatica 106 (1), 45–73.
Tamouk, J., Lotfi, N., Farmanbar, M., 2013. Satellite Image Classification Methods
And Landsat 5tm Bands. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recogn.
Stein, A., 2002. Pattern recognition. In: El-Shaarawi, A.H., Piegorsch, W. (Eds.)
Encyclopedia of environmentrics Vol. 4. Chichester: Wiley & Sons, ISBN: 0-471-
89997-6. 1534-1542.
Tso, B., Mather, P.M., 2001. Classification Methods for Remotely Sensed Data. Taylor
and Francis Inc, New York.
Wojtaszek, M.V., Balázsik, V., Jancsó, T., Gulyás, M.H., Meng, Q., 2015. Comparison of
three image classification Methods in Urban enviornment. J. Geosci. Environ.
Protection 3, 54–59.
Yannis, S.A., Stefanos, D.K., 1999.-Fuzzy. Fuzzy Image Classification Using Multi-
resolution Neural with Applications to Remote Sensing. Electrical Engineering
Department, National Technical University of Athens, Zographou 15773, Greece.
Zhang, J., Foody, G.M., 2001. A fuzzy classification of sub-urban land cover from
remotely sensed imagery. Int. J. Remote Sensing 19, 2721–2738.