Remote Sensing for Natural Resources >
Hyperspectral remote sensing image classification using improved residual 3D-CNN and neighborhood attention
Received date: 2024-05-24
Revised date: 2024-09-21
Online published: 2026-06-03
Hyperspectral remote sensing image classification has attracted widespread attention,yet the performance of classification methods remains greatly limited by challenges such as spectral variability (same object with different spectra),spectral confusion (different objects with similar spectra),and limited availability of training samples. To fully exploit the spatial-spectral features of hyperspectral images,this study proposed an improved network integrating residual convolution and neighborhood attention mechanisms. The proposed method consists of:(1) a residual-based spectral feature extraction module combining residual connections and a 3D convolutional neural network (3D-CNN);(2) a spatial-spectral feature fusion module using mixed convolutions;and (3) a neighborhood attention module designed to enhance the model's ability to focus on homogeneous regions. Experiments were conducted on three public hyperspectral datasets-Indian Pines,Pavia University,and Houston 2013. The results demonstrate that the proposed method achieves higher classification accuracy compared to recent state-of-the-art approaches. Using less than 10% of the samples for training,it attains overall accuracies of 99.39%,99.67%,and 98.64%,respectively,confirming its capability for high-accuracy classification under small-sample conditions.
PAN Zengying , WU Ruijiao , LIN Yifeng , WENG Qian , LIN Jiawen . Hyperspectral remote sensing image classification using improved residual 3D-CNN and neighborhood attention[J]. Remote Sensing for Natural Resources, 2025 , 37(5) : 101 -112 . DOI: 10.6046/zrzyyg.2024191
表1 不同方法在IP数据集上的分类结果Tab.1 Classification Results of Different Methods on IP Datasets |
| 类别 | 1D-CNN | 2D-CNN | SSRN | HybridSN | A2S2K | morphFormer | LSGA | IR3NAN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 苜蓿 | 22.93 | 55.61 | 72.93 | 79.76 | 79.27 | 89.51 | 88.29 | 97.56 |
| 未翻耕的玉米地 | 59.95 | 78.06 | 84.92 | 95.35 | 98.67 | 97.11 | 98.79 | 98.96 |
| 翻耕过的玉米地 | 51.02 | 82.53 | 89.21 | 93.36 | 98.33 | 96.49 | 95.92 | 98.89 |
| 玉米地 | 38.78 | 82.35 | 91.60 | 88.69 | 97.56 | 95.82 | 97.32 | 98.50 |
| 牧草区 | 73.72 | 95.52 | 96.74 | 92.34 | 98.92 | 96.46 | 98.32 | 98.69 |
| 草地与树木 | 86.51 | 97.84 | 99.47 | 97.69 | 99.27 | 99.74 | 99.89 | 99.82 |
| 已收割的牧草区 | 45.60 | 42.80 | 66.40 | 64.80 | 92.40 | 99.20 | 100.00 | 99.60 |
| 风干的草料 | 94.26 | 99.49 | 98.09 | 97.19 | 99.81 | 99.79 | 99.88 | 99.93 |
| 燕麦 | 18.89 | 65.56 | 9.44 | 94.44 | 99.44 | 84.44 | 97.78 | 98.33 |
| 未翻耕的大豆田 | 48.00 | 76.99 | 86.82 | 96.49 | 98.89 | 98.74 | 99.22 | 99.05 |
| 翻耕过的大豆田 | 67.89 | 84.51 | 97.24 | 95.71 | 99.38 | 98.45 | 99.50 | 99.67 |
| 已清理的大豆田 | 43.73 | 82.73 | 98.45 | 91.46 | 99.29 | 95.13 | 98.65 | 99.16 |
| 小麦 | 93.35 | 99.19 | 99.68 | 98.11 | 100.00 | 99.73 | 99.78 | 100.00 |
| 树林 | 92.99 | 98.13 | 92.68 | 99.08 | 99.93 | 99.87 | 99.99 | 100.00 |
| 建筑物、草地、树木、车道 | 39.39 | 89.57 | 89.34 | 88.1 | 98.67 | 98.30 | 98.79 | 100.00 |
| 石、钢、塔、楼 | 89.76 | 98.81 | 98.57 | 81.79 | 98.10 | 94.76 | 94.88 | 96.79 |
| OA/% | 66.67 | 86.77 | 92.84 | 95.08 | 99.03 | 98.04 | 98.92 | 99.39 |
| AA/% | 60.42 | 83.11 | 85.72 | 90.9 | 97.37 | 96.47 | 97.94 | 99.06 |
| Kappa | 0.619 8 | 0.847 5 | 0.918 8 | 0.943 9 | 0.988 9 | 0.977 6 | 0.987 7 | 0.993 0 |
表2 不同方法在PU数据集上的分类结果Tab.2 Classification results of different methods on the PU dataset |
| 类别 | 1D-CNN | 2D-CNN | SSRN | HybridSN | A2S2K | morphFormer | LSGA | IR3NAN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 沥青路面 | 87.81 | 95.72 | 99.96 | 96.58 | 99.87 | 98.75 | 99.57 | 99.99 |
| 草地 | 90.85 | 97.50 | 99.60 | 99.77 | 99.97 | 99.91 | 99.88 | 99.98 |
| 碎石 | 57.84 | 69.74 | 92.47 | 86.49 | 94.52 | 89.45 | 89.90 | 97.49 |
| 树木 | 85.84 | 98.36 | 98.66 | 88.23 | 99.07 | 96.19 | 97.81 | 98.61 |
| 涂漆金属板 | 98.75 | 99.94 | 100.00 | 86.66 | 99.98 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.98 |
| 裸土 | 72.67 | 84.88 | 99.69 | 99.60 | 100.00 | 99.95 | 99.97 | 99.94 |
| 沥青 | 79.44 | 89.11 | 99.93 | 90.75 | 99.46 | 99.86 | 99.51 | 100.00 |
| 自阻砖 | 84.66 | 90.74 | 98.53 | 89.17 | 98.46 | 93.43 | 96.43 | 99.28 |
| 阴影 | 99.52 | 99.67 | 99.91 | 78.88 | 99.94 | 93.72 | 97.60 | 98.84 |
| OA/% | 85.82 | 93.72 | 99.18 | 95.71 | 99.48 | 98.26 | 98.85 | 99.67 |
| AA/% | 84.15 | 91.74 | 98.75 | 90.68 | 99.03 | 96.81 | 97.85 | 99.35 |
| Kappa | 0.812 3 | 0.916 1 | 0.989 2 | 0.943 0 | 0.993 1 | 0.976 9 | 0.984 8 | 0.995 6 |
表3 不同方法在HO集上的分类结果Tab.3 Classification results of different methods on the HO dataset |
| 类别 | 1D-CNN | 2D-CNN | SSRN | HybridSN | A2S2K | morphFormer | LSGA | IR3NAN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 健康的草地 | 93.90 | 94.65 | 93.36 | 91.83 | 96.37 | 94.77 | 94.85 | 96.83 |
| 受压力的草地 | 94.81 | 97.63 | 96.54 | 95.50 | 99.13 | 97.95 | 98.85 | 99.21 |
| 人造草皮 | 95.39 | 95.44 | 92.63 | 97.98 | 99.24 | 99.31 | 99.63 | 99.89 |
| 树木 | 94.03 | 98.60 | 99.87 | 95.53 | 99.93 | 97.52 | 97.66 | 99.93 |
| 土壤 | 95.86 | 97.37 | 99.61 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 水 | 68.01 | 67.21 | 78.16 | 85.37 | 84.04 | 83.75 | 96.25 | 95.44 |
| 住宅区 | 80.29 | 95.12 | 93.66 | 94.52 | 98.24 | 98.68 | 98.94 | 99.05 |
| 商业区 | 78.10 | 84.39 | 91.09 | 91.14 | 94.93 | 94.52 | 94.16 | 94.94 |
| 道路 | 73.29 | 89.06 | 83.47 | 93.73 | 98.55 | 97.80 | 97.79 | 98.11 |
| 高速公路 | 71.85 | 87.05 | 88.26 | 98.77 | 99.35 | 99.47 | 99.86 | 99.97 |
| 铁路 | 63.66 | 92.69 | 90.84 | 99.85 | 99.78 | 98.32 | 99.95 | 100.00 |
| 停车场1 | 75.47 | 92.18 | 88.17 | 96.51 | 97.84 | 96.82 | 96.77 | 99.12 |
| 停车场2 | 23.19 | 88.01 | 80.87 | 89.78 | 91.36 | 89.21 | 92.62 | 92.29 |
| 网球场 | 89.44 | 98.91 | 94.84 | 73.33 | 99.96 | 99.89 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 跑道 | 94.79 | 100.00 | 99.34 | 97.99 | 100.00 | 99.89 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| OA/% | 81.11 | 92.91 | 92.14 | 95.19 | 98.21 | 97.45 | 97.96 | 98.64 |
| AA/% | 79.47 | 91.89 | 91.38 | 93.46 | 97.25 | 96.53 | 97.82 | 98.32 |
| Kappa | 0.794 7 | 0.923 0 | 0.914 5 | 0.947 7 | 0.980 6 | 0.972 3 | 0.977 8 | 0.985 2 |
图4 各个方法在IP数据集分类图对比Fig.4 Comparison of classification maps of various methods on the IP dataset |
图5 各个方法在PU数据集分类图对比Fig.5 Comparison of classification maps of various methods on the PU dataset |
图6 各个方法在HO数据集分类图对比Fig.6 Comparison of classification maps of various methods on the HO dataset |
表4 各个模块的消融对比Tab.4 Ablation comparison of each module |
| 数据集 | 精度 | Baseline | RSFEM | NAM | RSFEM+NAM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IP | OA/% | 99.04 | 99.38 | 99.11 | 99.39 |
| AA/% | 98.31 | 99.06 | 98.38 | 99.06 | |
| Kappa | 0.989 1 | 0.993 0 | 0.989 9 | 0.993 0 | |
| PU | OA/% | 99.26 | 99.45 | 99.30 | 99.67 |
| AA/% | 98.19 | 98.63 | 98.34 | 99.35 | |
| Kappa | 0.990 2 | 0.992 7 | 0.990 7 | 0.995 6 | |
| HO | OA/% | 98.39 | 98.53 | 98.50 | 98.64 |
| AA/% | 98.17 | 98.13 | 98.24 | 98.32 | |
| Kappa | 0.982 5 | 0.984 0 | 0.983 7 | 0.985 2 |
表5 不同大小空间块分类精度对比Tab.5 Comparison of classification accuracy for different patch sizes |
| 数据集 | 精度 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IP | OA/% | 99.27 | 99.39 | 99.22 | 98.97 | 98.65 |
| AA/% | 98.60 | 99.06 | 98.85 | 95.83 | 91.74 | |
| Kappa | 0.991 7 | 0.993 0 | 0.991 1 | 0.988 3 | 0.984 6 | |
| PU | OA/% | 99.19 | 99.42 | 99.58 | 99.67 | 99.64 |
| AA/% | 98.56 | 99.04 | 99.18 | 99.35 | 99.33 | |
| Kappa | 0.989 3 | 0.992 3 | 0.994 4 | 0.995 6 | 0.995 2 | |
| HO | OA/% | 98.42 | 98.64 | 98.52 | 98.42 | 98.34 |
| AA/% | 97.98 | 98.32 | 97.95 | 97.78 | 97.68 | |
| Kappa | 0.982 8 | 0.985 2 | 0.983 9 | 0.982 8 | 0.981 9 |
| [1] |
张涛, 王彬沣, 付莹, 等. 基于深度学习的光谱图像超分辨率综述[J]. 中国图象图形学报, 2024, 29(8):2113-2136.
|
| [2] |
马晓瑞, 哈林, 谌敦斌, 等. 融合特征优化的跨数据集高光谱图像分类[J]. 中国图象图形学报, 2024, 29(8):2175-2187.
|
| [3] |
袁静文, 武辰, 杜博, 等. 高分五号高光谱遥感影像的城市土地利用景观格局分析[J]. 遥感学报, 2020, 24(4):465-478.
|
| [4] |
王书伟, 席磊, 邱霜, 等. 高光谱遥感森林资源监测原理与应用[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2023, 51(15):111-114,197.
|
| [5] |
杨燕杰. 基于高光谱的高海拔地区矿物信息提取与分析[J]. 世界核地质科学, 2023, 40(4):1020-1028.
|
| [6] |
吕欢欢, 张峻通, 张辉. 多尺度特征与双注意力机制的高光谱影像分类[J]. 光电子·激光, 2024, 35(2):143-154.
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |