Früher|Nächster

Real-time sample-wise hyperspectral anomaly detection algorithm using Cholesky decomposition

  • role： First author第一作者
  • Affiliation：

    Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China

    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

  • Email：pengbo@radi.ac.cn
  • Introduction：彭波(1991—　)，男，硕士研究生，研究方向为高光谱图像异常探测。E-mail：pengbo@radi.ac.cn
PENG Bo12,  
  • role： Corresponding author通信作者
  • Affiliation：

    Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China

  • Email：zhanglf@radi.ac.cn
  • Introduction：张立福(1967—　)，男，研究员，研究方向为高光谱遥感机理及典型应用。E-mail：zhanglf@radi.ac.cn
ZHANG Lifu1*,  
  • Affiliation：

    Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China

    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

ZHANG Peng12,  
  • Affiliation：

    Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China

DENG Xianming1,  
  • Affiliation：

    Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China

CEN Yi1

Resümee

Anomaly detection is one of the most important issues in hyperspectral remote sensing. However, traditional anomaly detection algorithms cannot be used for onboard real-time processing due to heavy computational load caused by the dimensionality curse of hyperspectral data. To implement onboard real-time hyperspectral anomaly detection, the following must be performed: (1) conduct the process in a causal progressive manner without any future data relative to the pixel under test; (2) output the result for each sample right after collecting it; (3) process the data with constant theoretical computational complexity. The present widely used algorithms generally employ QR decomposition or Woodbury’s Identity for real-time anomaly detection. However, their computational load is still extremely high. Also, they suffered serious numerical instabilities led by runoff error in the matrix inverting process. The main objective of this study is to further accelerate the real-time detection process and avoid the matrix inversion module to maintain numerical stabilities. In this work, we proposed a novel real-time sample-wise hyperspectral anomaly detection algorithm based on Cholesky decomposition. The background sample correlation matrix and covariance matrix were symmetric positive definite, which can be factored into a lower triangular matrix and its transpose. We modified the background suppression process into a process that finds the solution to a lower-triangular linear system based on this characteristic. Furthermore, the real-time process is significantly accelerated by virtue of rank-1 updates to the Cholesky factor of the background statistical matrix. Moreover, the numerical stabilities were maintained. Finally, we performed a three dimensional ROC (3D-ROC) analysis to evaluate the performance of real-time anomaly detection in terms of background suppression, detection power, false alarm, and the relationship between each other. An experiment on an actual hyperspectral dataset collected by Field Imaging Spectrometer System (FISS) revealed the following. (1) The proposed algorithm significantly reduced the computing time to process the incoming data. The theoretical computational load demonstrated high efficiency of the technique developed in this work. The time consumption for each incoming sample was reduced to 0.4%—0.65% of the time consumed by traditional QR decomposition-based algorithms, and 27%—33% of the time corresponding to Woodbury’s identity-based techniques. (2) The sample varying background suppression provided an acceptable visual inspection of the anomalies. Real-time processing prevented these weak signals from being suppressed by later detected strong signals. Additionally, 3D-ROC analysis could effectively evaluate the detection performance of hyperspectral anomaly detectors. The real-time sample-wise hyperspectral anomaly detector developed in this study is not only computationally efficient but also numerically stable, significantly contributing to onboard implementations.

Schlüsselwort

hyperspectral;anomaly detection;real-time processing;Cholesky decomposition;rank-1 updating

References

  1. 1.
    Acito N, Matteoli S, Diani M and Corsini G. 2011. Complexity-aware algorithm architecture for real-time enhancement of local anomalies in hyperspectral images. Journal of Real-Time Image Processing, 8(1): 53–68
  2. 2.
    Bojanczyk A W, Brent R, Van Dooren P and De Hoog F. 1987. A note on downdating the Cholesky factorization. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 8(3): 210–221
  3. 3.
    Chang C I. 2003. Hyperspectral Imaging: Techniques for Spectral Detection and Classification. New York: Springer [DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-9170-6]
  4. 4.
    Chang C I. 2013. Hyperspectral Data Processing: Algorithm Design and Analysis. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons [DOI: 10.1002/9781118269787]
  5. 5.
    Chang C I. 2016. Real-time Progressive Hyperspectral Image Processing: Endmember Finding and Anomaly Detection. New York: Springer [DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-6187-7]
  6. 6.
    Chang C I and Chiang S S. 2002. Anomaly detection and classification for hyperspectral imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 40(6): 1314–1325
  7. 7.
    Chang C I and Hsueh M. 2006. Characterization of anomaly detection in hyperspectral imagery. Sensor Review, 26(2): 137–146
  8. 8.
    Chang C I, Li H C, Song M P, Liu C H and Zhang L F. 2015. Real-time constrained energy minimization for subpixel detection. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 8(6): 2545–2559
  9. 9.
    Chang C I, Ren H and Chiang S S. 2001. Real-time processing algorithms for target detection and classification in hyperspectral imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 39(4): 760–768
  10. 10.
    Chen S Y, Wang Y L, Wu C C, Liu C H and Chang C I. 2014. Real-time causal processing of anomaly detection for hyperspectral imagery. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 50(2): 1511–1534
  11. 11.
    Du B and Zhang L P. 2011. Random-selection-based anomaly detector for hyperspectral imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 49(5): 1578–1589
  12. 12.
    Du Q and Nekovei R. 2009. Fast real-time onboard processing of hyperspectral imagery for detection and classification. Journal of Real-Time Image Processing, 4(3): 273–286
  13. 13.
    Gill P E, Golub G H, Murray W and Saunders M A. 1974. Methods for modifying matrix factorizations. Mathematics of Computation, 28(126): 505–535
  14. 14.
    Golub G H and Van Loan C F. 2012. Matrix Computations. Baltimore: JHU Press [DOI: 10.1137/1032141]
  15. 15.
    Guo W J, Zeng X R, Zhao B W, Ming X, Zhang G F and Lv Q B. 2014. Multi-DSP parallel processing technique of hyperspectral RX anomaly detection. Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis, 34(5): 1383–1387
  16. 16.
    Hsueh M. 2007. Reconfigurable Computing for Algorithms in Hyperspectral Image Processing. Baltimore: University of Maryland, Baltimore County
  17. 17.
    Molero J M, Garzón E M, García I and Plaza A. 2013. Analysis and optimizations of global and local versions of the RX algorithm for anomaly detection in hyperspectral data. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 6(2): 801–814
  18. 18.
    Paz A and Plaza A. 2010. Clusters versus GPUs for parallel target and anomaly detection in hyperspectral images. Eurasip Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, 2010: 915639
  19. 19.
    Press W H, Teukolsky S A, Vetterling W T and Flannery B P. 2007. Numerical Recipes 3rd Edition: the Art of Scientific Computing. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [DOI: 10.1145/1874391.187410]
  20. 20.
    Reed I S and Yu X. 1990. Adaptive multiple-band cfar detection of an optical pattern with unknown spectral distribution. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 38(10): 1760–1770
  21. 21.
    Rossi A, Acito N, Diani M and Corsini G. 2012. Computationally efficient strategies to perform anomaly detection in hyperspectral images//Proceedings of SPIE 8537, Image and Signal Processing for Remote Sensing XVIII. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: SPIE: 85370H [DOI: 10.1117/12.973686]
  22. 22.
    Rossi A, Acito N, Diani M and Corsini G. 2014. RX architectures for real-time anomaly detection in hyperspectral images. Journal of Real-Time Image Processing, 9(3): 503–517
  23. 23.
    Seeger M. 2004. Low rank updates for the Cholesky decomposition. No. EPREPORT-161468. 2004.
  24. 24.
    Stewart G W. 1998. Matrix Algorithms: Volume 1: Basic Decompositions. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics [DOI: 10-1137/19781611971408]
  25. 25.
    Zhao B W, Xiang L B, Lv Q B, Zhang G F, Zeng X R and Guo W J. 2014. Parallel RX algorithm implementation based on the FPGA and multi-DSP system. Journal of Xidian University, 41(3): 152–156
  26. 26.
    Zhao C H, Wang Y L and Li X H. 2015. A real-time anomaly detection algorithm for hyperspectral imagery based on causal processing. Journal of Infrared and Millimeter Waves, 34(1): 114–121

Lesen Sie die ganze Passage

The above content is generated by Large Model Translation. The translated content is for reference only. We do not assume any commercial or legal responsibilty for any consequences arising from the use of our website