Précédent|Prochain

Research progress on unmixing of hyperspectral remote sensing imagery

  • role： First author第一作者
  • Affiliation：

    Department of Instrument Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology, Beijing 100083, China

  • Email：lanjh@ustb.edu.cn
  • Introduction：蓝金辉(1967—　)，女，教授，研究方向为高光谱遥感、遥感数据处理与应用。E-mail：lanjh@ustb.edu.cn
Jinhui LAN1,  
  • Affiliation：

    Department of Instrument Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology, Beijing 100083, China

Jinlin ZOU1,  
  • Affiliation：

    Department of Instrument Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology, Beijing 100083, China

Yanshuang HAO1,  
  • Affiliation：

    Department of Instrument Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology, Beijing 100083, China

Yiliang ZENG1,  
  • Affiliation：

    Department of Instrument Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology, Beijing 100083, China

Yuzhen ZHANG1,  
  • Affiliation：

    The High School Affiliated to University of Science & Technology, Beijing 100083, China

Mingwei DONG2

résumé

Hyperspectral imaging, which measures electromagnetic energy scattered in the instantaneous field view in hundreds of bands, contributes significantly to earth observation. As the electromagnetic spectrum covers visible, near infrared, and shortwave infrared spectral bands, it holds abundant spectral information. The subtle discriminative spectral characteristics also make material identification possible. However, the signals recorded by low-resolution hyperspectral sensors from certain pixels under a complex background are a mixture of substances. To improve the accuracy of classification and subpixel object detection, Hyperspectral Unmixing (HU) represents an important solution, especially in the remote sensing area. Mixed pixels comprise a few materials called endmembers. The fraction of each endmember in a pixel is called abundance. Given the hyperspectral data exhibiting high dimension, special spectral correlation, and huge quantity, the determination of the number of endmembers can be regarded as dimensionality reduction. The objective of HU is to estimate and extract the spectral signatures and abundance of endmembers. In this study, mixing models are systematically discussed. On the basis of mixing models, the core problem of HU is presented, which mainly comprises three aspects: estimation of number of endmembers, endmember extraction, and abundance fraction estimation. For each aspect, we summarize the basic theory and development of the HU processing methods. Through the basic theory model, this work performs an initial classification of each aspect. The physical or mathematical problems involved are also discussed along with classical and state-of-the-art methods used to address the problems. Furthermore, a general overview of each category is provided, and a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of classic algorithms is performed. Through the comparison of different methods, this study offers a perspective on the potential and emerging challenges in the process of HU. The research on HU has been continuous. Even though extensive processing results have been achieved and numerous analyses have been performed, obstacles remain and call for solutions. Five challenges are identified in this work: curse of dimensionality, establishment of a high-accuracy mixed inversion model, endmember variation, establishment of remote sensing operational product, and development of algorithms for real-time processing. According to each challenge, the study performs further analysis and presents several remarks. Then, suggestions with regard to future research directions are offered. This study provides a brief overview of HU. With the development of hyperspectral imaging, the performance of imaging data has undergone a qualitative leap. However, different application requires different data types. That is, the most suitable data, and not the data with the highest index, should be adopted to solve the problem. Considering the future development trend of HU, this work suggests that new methods be combined with the demands of users to promote the operational application of HU and support hyperspectral remote sensing engineering applications.

mots-clés

hyperspectral image;linear unmixing;endmember extraction;abundance estimation

References

  1. 1.
    Akaike H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6): 716–723 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
  2. 2.
    Ambikapathi A M, Chan T H, Chi C Y and Keizer K. 2013. Hyperspectral data geometry-based estimation of number of endmembers using p-norm-based pure pixel identification algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 51(5): 2753–2769 10.1109/TGRS.2012.2213261
  3. 3.
    Andreou C and Karathanassi V. 2014. Estimation of the number of endmembers using robust outlier detection method. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 7(1): 247–256 10.1109/JSTARS.2013.2260135
  4. 4.
    Araújo M C U, Saldanha T C B, Galvão R K H, Yoneyama T, Chame H C and Visani V. 2001. The successive projections algorithm for variable selection in spectroscopic multicomponent analysis. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 57(2): 65–73 10.1016/S0169-7439(01)00119-8
  5. 5.
    Bajorski P. 2011. Second moment linear dimensionality as an alternative to virtual dimensionality. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 49(2): 672–678 10.1109/TGRS.2010.2057434
  6. 6.
    Bayliss J D, Gualtieri J A and Cromp R F. 1998. Analyzing hyperspectral data with independent component analysis//Proceedings of the SPIE Volume 3240, 26th AIPR Workshop: Exploiting New Image Sources and Sensors. Washington, DC: SPIE: 133–143 [DOI: 10.1117/12.300050]
  7. 7.
    Berman M, Kiiveri H, Lagerstrom R, Ernst A, Dunne R and Huntington J F. 2004. ICE: a statistical approach to identifying endmembers in hyperspectral images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 42(10): 2085–2095 10.1109/TGRS.2004.835299
  8. 8.
    Bioucas-Dias J M. 2009. A variable splitting augmented Lagrangian approach to linear spectral unmixing//Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Hyperspectral Image and Signal Processing: Evolution in Remote Sensing. Grenoble, France: IEEE: 1–4 [DOI: 10.1109/WHISPERS.2009.5289072]
  9. 9.
    Bioucas-Dias J M and Figueiredo M A T. 2010. Alternating direction algorithms for constrained sparse regression: application to hyperspectral unmixing//Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Hyperspectral Image and Signal Processing: Evolution in Remote Sensing (WHISPERS). Reykjavik: IEEE: 1–4 [DOI: 10.1109/WHISPERS.2010.5594963]
  10. 10.
    Bioucas-Dias J M and Nascimento J M P. 2008. Hyperspectral subspace identification. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 46(8): 2435–2445 10.1109/TGRS.2008.918089
  11. 11.
    Bioucas-Dias J M, Plaza A, Camps-Valls G, Scheunders P, Nasrabadi N and Chanussot J. 2013. Hyperspectral remote sensing data analysis and future challenges. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 1(2): 6–36 10.1109/MGRS.2013.2244672
  12. 12.
    Bioucas-Dias J M, Plaza A, Dobigeon N, Parente M, Du Q, Gader P and Chanussot J. 2012. Hyperspectral unmixing overview: Geometrical, statistical, and sparse regression-based approaches. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 5(2): 354–379 10.1109/JSTARS.2012.2194696
  13. 13.
    Boardman J W. 1993. Automating spectral unmixing of AVIRIS data using convex geometry concepts//JPL, Summaries of the 4th Annual JPL Airborne Geoscience Workshop. Volume 1: AVIRIS Workshop. Boulder, CO: Colorado University: 11–14
  14. 14.
    Boardman J W, Kruse F A and Green R O. 1995. Mapping target signatures via partial unmixing of AVIRIS data//Summaries, 5th JPL Airborne Earth Science Workshop. Pasadena, CA: JPL Publication
  15. 15.
    Broadwater J, Chellappa R, Banerjee A and Burlina P. 2007. Kernel fully constrained least squares abundance estimates//Proceedings of IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. Barcelona, Spain: IEEE: 4041–4044 [DOI: 10.1109/IGARSS.2007.4423736]
  16. 16.
    Chang C I and Du Q. 2004. Estimation of number of spectrally distinct signal sources in hyperspectral imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 42(3): 608–619 10.1109/TGRS.2003.819189
  17. 17.
    Chen J, Ma L, Chen X H and Rao Y H. 2016. Research progress of spectral mixture analysis. Journal of Remote Sensing, 20(5): 1102–1109 (
  18. 18.
    Chen J, Richard C and Honeine P. 2014. Nonlinear estimation of material abundances in hyperspectral images with ℓ1 norm spatial regularization. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 52(5): 2654–2665 10.1109/TGRS.2013.2264392
  19. 19.
    Chouzenoux E, Legendre M, Moussaoui S and Idier J. 2014. Fast constrained least squares spectral unmixing using primal-dual interior-point optimization. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 7(1): 59–69 10.1109/JSTARS.2013.2266732
  20. 20.
    Craig M D. 1994. Minimum-volume transforms for remotely sensed data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 32(3): 542–552 10.1109/36.297973
  21. 21.
    Dobigeon N, Moussaoui S, Tourneret J Y and Carteret C. 2009. Bayesian separation of spectral sources under non-negativity and full additivity constraints. Signal Processing, 89(12): 2657–2669 10.1016/j.sigpro.2009.05.005
  22. 22.
    Du P J, Xia J S, Xue Z H, Tan K, Su H J and Bao R. 2016. Review of hyperspectral remote sensing image classification. Journal of Remote Sensing, 20(2): 236–256 (
  23. 23.
    Eches O, Dobigeon N and Tourneret J Y. 2010. Estimating the number of endmembers in hyperspectral images using the normal compositional model and a hierarchical Bayesian algorithm. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 4(3): 582–591 10.1109/JSTSP.2009.2038212
  24. 24.
    Elad M and Aharon M. 2006. Image denoising via sparse and redundant representations over learned dictionaries. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 15(12): 3736–45 10.1109/TIP.2006.881969
  25. 25.
    Eismann M T and Stein D W J. 2007. Stochastic mixture modelling//Hyperspectral Data Exploitation: Theory and Applications. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons [DOI: 10.1002/9780470124628.ch5]
  26. 26.
    Farzam M, Beheshti S and Raahemifar K. 2008. Calculation of abundance factors in hyperspectral imaging using genetic algorithm//Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering. Niagara Falls, ON: IEEE: 837–842 [DOI: 10.1109/CCECE.2008.4564653]
  27. 27.
    Feng R Y, Zhong Y F and Zhang L P. 2015. An improved nonlocal sparse unmixing algorithm for hyperspectral imagery. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 12(4): 915–919 10.1109/LGRS.2014.2367028
  28. 28.
    Fuhrmann D R. 1999. Simplex shrink-wrap algorithm//Proceedings of the SPIE 3718, Automatic Target Recognition IX. Orlando, FL: SPIE [DOI: 10.1117/12.359990]
  29. 29.
    Fukunaga K. 1982. Intrinsic dimensionality extraction. Handbook of Statistics, 2: 347–360 10.1016/S0169-7161(82)02018-5
  30. 30.
    Gan F P, Xiong S Q, Wang R S and Yan B K. 2014. Hyperspectral mineral mapping and it’s demonstration applications. Beijing: Science Press: 7
  31. 31.
    Gao L R, Gao J W, Li J, Plaza A, Zhuang L N, Sun X and Zhang B. 2015. Multiple algorithm integration based on ant colony optimization for endmember extraction from hyperspectral imagery. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 8(6): 2569–2582 10.1109/JSTARS.2014.2371615
  32. 32.
    Gao L R, Zhuang L N, Wu Y F, Sun X and Zhang B. 2016. A quantitative and comparative analysis of different preprocessing implementations of DPSO: a robust endmember extraction algorithm. Soft Computing, 20(12): 4669–4683 10.1007/s00500-014-1507-2
  33. 33.
    Gong P and Zhang A. 1999. Noise effect on linear spectral unmixing. Annals of GIS, 5(1): 52–57 10.1080/10824009909480514
  34. 34.
    Gonzalez C, Resano J, Plaza A and Mozos D. 2012. FPGA implementation of abundance estimation for spectral unmixing of hyperspectral data using the image space reconstruction algorithm. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 5(1): 248–261 10.1109/JSTARS.2011.2171673
  35. 35.
    Green A A, Berman M, Switzer P and Craig M D. 1988. A transformation for ordering multispectral data in terms of image quality with implications for noise removal. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 26(1): 65–74 10.1109/36.3001
  36. 36.
    Gruninger J H, Ratkowski A J and Hoke M L. 2004. The sequential maximum angle convex cone (SMACC) endmember model//Proceedings of the SPIE Volume 5425, Algorithms and Technologies for Multispectral, Hyperspectral, and Ultraspectral Imagery X. Orlando, FL: SPIE: 1–14 [DOI: 10.1117/12.543794]
  37. 37.
    Guilfoyle K J, Althouse M L and Chang C I. 2001. A quantitative and comparative analysis of linear and nonlinear spectral mixture models using radial basis function neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 39(10): 2314–2318 10.1109/36.957296
  38. 38.
    Halimi A, Altmann Y, Dobigeon N and Tourneret J Y. 2011. Unmixing hyperspectral images using the generalized bilinear model // Proceedings of IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. Vancouver, BC: IEEE: 1886–1889 [DOI: 10.1109/IGARSS.2011.6049492]
  39. 39.
    Harsanyi J C and Chang C I. 1994. Hyperspectral image classification and dimensionality reduction: an orthogonal subspace projection approach. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 32(4): 779–785 10.1109/36.298007
  40. 40.
    Heinz D, Chang C I and Althouse M L G. 1999. Fully constrained least-squares based linear unmixing [hyperspectral image classification]//Proceedings of IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. Hamburg, Germany: IEEE, 2: 1401–1403 [DOI: 10.1109/IGARSS.1999.774644]
  41. 41.
    Heylen R, Parente M and Scheunders P. 2017. Estimation of the number of endmembers in a hyperspectral image via the hubness phenomenon. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 55(4): 2191–2200 10.1109/TGRS.2016.2638541
  42. 42.
    Jolliffe I T. 1986. Principal component analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986: 111–137 10.1007/978-1-4757-1904-8_7
  43. 43.
    Kizel F, Shoshany M, Netanyahu N S, Even-Tzur G and Benediktsson J A. 2017. A stepwise analytical projected gradient descent search for hyperspectral unmixing and its code vectorization. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 55(9): 4925–4943 10.1109/TGRS.2017.2692999
  44. 44.
    Kong X B, Shu N, Gong Y and Wang K. 2013. Integration of spatial-spectral information based endmember extraction for hyperspectral image. Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis, 33(6): 1647–1652 (
  45. 45.
    Lee C A, Gasster S D, Plaza A, Chang C I and Huang B. 2011. Recent developments in high performance computing for remote sensing: a review. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 4(3): 508–527 10.1109/JSTARS.2011.2162643
  46. 46.
    Li C, Ma Y, Huang J, Mei X G, Liu C Y and Ma J Y. 2016a. GBM-based unmixing of hyperspectral data using bound projected optimal gradient method. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 13(7): 952–956 10.1109/LGRS.2016.2555341
  47. 47.
    Li J. 2004. Wavelet-based feature extraction for improved endmember abundance estimation in linear unmixing of hyperspectral signals. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 42(3): 644–649 10.1109/TGRS.2003.822750
  48. 48.
    Li J and Bioucas-Dias J M. 2008. Minimum volume simplex analysis: a fast algorithm to unmix hyperspectral data//Proceedings of IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. Boston, MA: IEEE: III-250-III-253 [DOI: 10.1109/IGARSS.2008.4779330]
  49. 49.
    Li J, Bioucas-Dias J M, Plaza A and Liu L. 2016b. Robust collaborative nonnegative matrix factorization for hyperspectral unmixing. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 54(10): 6076–6090 10.1109/TGRS.2016.2580702
  50. 50.
    Luo B, Chanussot J, Douté S and Zhang L P. 2013. Empirical automatic estimation of the number of endmembers in hyperspectral images. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 10(1): 24–28 10.1109/LGRS.2012.2189934
  51. 51.
    Miao L D and Qi H. 2007. Endmember extraction from highly mixed data using minimum volume constrained nonnegative matrix factorization. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 45(3): 765–777 10.1109/TGRS.2006.888466
  52. 52.
    Nascimento J M P and Bioucas-Dias J M. 2007. Hyperspectral unmixing algorithm via dependent component analysis//Proceedings of IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. Barcelona, Spain: IEEE: 4033–4036 [DOI: 10.1109/IGARSS.2007.4423734]
  53. 53.
    Nascimento J M P and Dias J M B. 2005. Vertex component analysis: a fast algorithm to unmix hyperspectral data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 43(4): 898–910 10.1109/TGRS.2005.844293
  54. 54.
    Neville R A, Staenz K, Szeredi T, Lefebvre J and Hauff P. 1999. Automatic endmember extraction from hyperspectral data for mineral exploration//Proceedings of the Fourth International Air-borne Remote Sensing Conference and Exhibition/21st Canadian Symposium on Remote Sensing. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: ERIM International: 21–24
  55. 55.
    Plaza A, Martínez P, Pérez R and Plaza J. 2002. Spatial/spectral endmember extraction by multidimensional morphological operations. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 40(9): 2025–2041 10.1109/TGRS.2002.802494
  56. 56.
    Plaza J, Martínez P, Pérez R and Plaza A. 2004. Nonlinear neural network mixture models for fractional abundance estimation in AVIRIS hyperspectral images//Proceedings of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory AVIRIS Airborne Earth Science Workshop. Pasadena, California: NASA
  57. 57.
    Qian Y T, Jia S, Zhou J and Robles-Kelly A. 2011. Hyperspectral unmixing via L1/2 sparsity-constrained nonnegative matrix factorization. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 49(11): 4282–4297 10.1109/TGRS.2011.2144605
  58. 58.
    Qu Q, Nasrabadi N M and Tran T D. 2014. Abundance estimation for bilinear mixture models via joint sparse and low-rank representation. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 52(7): 4404–4423 10.1109/TGRS.2013.2281981
  59. 59.
    Rissanen J. 1978. Modeling by shortest data description. Automatica, 14(5): 465–471 10.1016/0005-1098(78)90005-5
  60. 60.
    Rogge D M, Rivard B, Zhang J, Sanchez A, Harris J and Feng J. 2007. Integration of spatial–spectral information for the improved extraction of endmembers. Remote Sensing of Environment, 110(3): 287–303 10.1016/j.rse.2007.02.019
  61. 61.
    Rudin L I, Osher S and Fatemi E. 1992. Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 60(1/4): 259–268 10.1016/0167-2789(92)90242-F
  62. 62.
    Schaepman M E, Ustin S L, Plaza A J, Painter T H, Verrelst J and Liang S L. 2009. Earth system science related imaging spectroscopy – an assessment. Remote Sensing of Environment, 113 Suppl 1: S123-S137 10.1016/j.rse.2009.03.001
  63. 63.
    Song A, Chang A, Choi J, Choi S and Kim Y. 2015. Automatic extraction of optimal endmembers from airborne hyperspectral imagery using iterative error analysis (IEA) and spectral discrimination measurements. Sensors, 15, 2593–2613 10.3390/s150202593
  64. 64.
    Thomas M L, Ralph W K, Jonathan W C, Peng W L, Yu X C, He H and Chen H S. 2016. Remote sensing and image interpretation. Beijing: publishing house of electronics industry: 382–400
  65. 65.
    Tong Q X, Zhang B and Zheng L F. 2006a. Hyperspectral Remote Sensing and It’s Multidisciplinary Applications. Beijing: Publishing House of Electronics Industry: 18–22
  66. 66.
    Tong Q X, Zhang B and Zheng L F. 2006b. Hyperspectral Remote Sensing. Beijing: Higher Education Press: 38–42
  67. 67.
    Wang G P, Yang K M, Zhuo W, Xia T and Zhang W W. 2016. Harmonic analysis-hypothesis testing model on estimating the endmember numbers of hyperspectral image. Science Technology and Engineering, 16(15): 98–105 (
  68. 68.
    Wang R S, Xiong S Q, Nie H F, Liang S N, Qi Z R, Yang J Z, Yan B K, Zhao F Y, Fan J H, Tong L Q, Lin J, Gan F P, Chen W, Yang S M, Zhang R J, Ge D Q, Zhang X K, Zhang Z H, Wang P Q, Gou X F and Li L. 2011. Remote sensing technology and its application in geological exploration. Acta Geologica Sinica, 85(11): 1699–1743 (
  69. 69.
    Winter M E. 1999. N-FINDR: an algorithm for fast autonomous spectral end-member determination in hyperspectral data//Proceedings of the SPIE Volume 3753, Imaging Spectrometry V. Denver, CO: SPIE [DOI: 10.1117/12.366289]
  70. 70.
    Wu B, Zhang L P and Li P X. 2004. Unsupervised orthogonal subspace projection approach to unmix hyperspectral imagery automatically. Journal of Image and Graphics, 9(11): 1392–1396 (
  71. 71.
    Wu B, Zhang L P and Li P X. 2006. Unmixing hyperspectral imagery based on support vector nonlinear approximating regression. Journal of Remote Sensing, 10(3): 312–318 (
  72. 72.
    Wu J and Peng D L. 2011. Advances in researches on hyperspectral remote sensing forestry information-extracting technology. Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis, 31(9): 2305–2312 (
  73. 73.
    Yang K M, Liu E X, Zhang W W, Wang G P and Xia T. 2016. A novel algorithm on endmember extraction based on surf and considering the dimension of hyperspectral image. Science Technology and Engineering, 16(18): 66–71 (
  74. 74.
    Yokoya N, Chanussot J and Iwasaki A. 2014. Nonlinear unmixing of hyperspectral data using semi-nonnegative matrix factorization. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 52(2): 1430–1437 10.1109/TGRS.2013.2251349
  75. 75.
    Zare A and Gader P. 2007. Sparsity promoting iterated constrained endmember detection in hyperspectral imagery. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 4(3): 446–450 10.1109/LGRS.2007.895727
  76. 76.
    Zhang B. 2011. Intelligent remote sensing satellite system. Journal of Remote Sensing, 15(3): 415–431 (
  77. 77.
    Zhang D and Zheng Y Q. 2013. Hyperspectral remote sensing and its development and application review. Optics and Optoelectronic Technology, 11(3): 67–73 (
  78. 78.
    Zhang S Q, Li J, Liu K, Deng C Z, Liu L and Plaza A. 2016. Hyperspectral unmixing based on local collaborative sparse regression. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 13(5): 631–635 10.1109/LGRS.2016.2527782
  79. 79.
    Zhao H H, Jiang Y M, Wang T, Cui W H and Li X W. 2016. A method based on the adaptive cuckoo search algorithm for endmember extraction from hyperspectral remote sensing images. Remote Sensing Letters, 7(3): 289–297 10.1080/2150704X.2015.1134844
  80. 80.
    Zhao S H, Zhang F, Wang Q, Yao Y J, Wang Z T and You D A. 2013. Application of hyper-spectral remote sensing technology in environmental protection. Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis, 33(12): 3343–3348 (
  81. 81.
    Zheng C Y, Li H, Wang Q and Philip Chen C L. 2016. Reweighted sparse regression for hyperspectral unmixing. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 54(1): 479–488 10.1109/TGRS.2015.2459763
  82. 82.
    Zortea M and Plaza A. 2009. Spatial preprocessing for endmember extraction. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 47(8): 2679–2693 10.1109/TGRS.2009.2014945

Lire l'article complet

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