Advertisement

Automated soil prediction using bag-of-features and chaotic spider monkey optimization algorithm

  • Sandeep Kumar
  • Basudev Sharma
  • Vivek Kumar Sharma
  • Ramesh C. Poonia
Special Issue
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

A proper soil prediction is one of the most important parameters to decide the suitable crop which is generally performed manually by the farmers. Therefore, the efficiency of the farmers may be increased by producing an automated tools for soil prediction. This paper presents an automated system for categorization of the soil datasets into respective categories using images of the soils which can further be used for the decision of crops. For the same, a novel Bag-of-words and chaotic spider monkey optimization based method has been proposed which is used to classify the soil images into its respective categories. The novel chaotic spider monkey optimization algorithm shows desirable convergence and improved global search ability over standard benchmark functions. Hence, it has been used to cluster the keypoints in Bag-of-words method for soil prediction. The experimental outcomes illustrate that the anticipated methods effectively classify the soil in comparison to other meta-heuristic based methods.

Keywords

Soil prediction Bag-of-words Clustering Spider monkey optimization 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Wang Z, Li H, Zhu Y, Xu T (2017) Review of plant identification based on image processing. Arch Comput Methods Eng 24(3):637–654MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Singh V, Misra A (2017) Detection of plant leaf diseases using image segmentation and soft computing techniques. Inf Process Agric 4(1):41–49Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhattacharya B, Solomatine DP (2006) Machine learning in soil classification. Neural Netw 19(2):186–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Srunitha K, Padmavathi S (2016) Performance of svm classifier for image based soil classification. In: IEEE International conference on signal processing, communication, power and embedded system (SCOPES), 2016, pp 411–415Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shenbagavalli R, Ramar K (2011) Classification of soil textures based on laws features extracted from preprocessing images on sequential and random windows. Bonfring Int J Adv Image Process 1:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhattacharya B, Solomatine DP (2003) An algorithm for clustering and classification of series data with constraint of contiguity. In: Design and application of hybrid intelligent systems. IOS Press, pp 489–498Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mayne PW (2007) Cone penetration testing, vol 368. Transportation Research Board, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang Z, Tumay MT (1999) Statistical to fuzzy approach toward cpt soil classification. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(3):179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saraswat M, Arya K (2014) Feature selection and classification of leukocytes using random forest. Med Biol Eng Comput 52:1041–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mittal H, Saraswat M (2017) Classification of histopathological images through bag-of-visual-words and gravitational search algorithm. In: Proc. of international conference on soft computing for problem solvingGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chang H, Nayak N, Spellman PT, Parvin B (2013) Characterization of tissue histopathology via predictive sparse decomposition and spatial pyramid matching. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. Springer, pp 91–98Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xu J, Xiang L, Liu Q, Gilmore H, Wu J, Tang J, Madabhushi A (2016) Stacked sparse autoencoder (ssae) for nuclei detection on breast cancer histopathology images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 35(1):119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cruz-Roa AA, Ovalle JEA, Madabhushi A, Osorio FAG (2013) A deep learning architecture for image representation, visual interpretability and automated basal-cell carcinoma cancer detection. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. Springer, pp 403–410Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ojala T, Pietikäinen M, Harwood D (1996) A comparative study of texture measures with classification based on featured distributions. Pattern Recogn 29(1):51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dalal N, Triggs B (2005) Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In: Computer vision and pattern recognition, vol 1. IEEE computer society conference on, CVPR 2005, pp 886–893Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lowe DG (2004) Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int J Comput Vis 60(2):91–110MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Csurka G, Dance C, Fan L, Willamowski J, Bray C (2004) Visual categorization with bags of keypoints. In: Workshop on statistical learning in computer vision, vol 1, ECCV, Prague, pp 1–2Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hussain K, Salleh MNM, Cheng S, Shi Y (2018) Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey. Artif Intell Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-017-9605-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saraswat M, Arya K, Sharma H (2013) Leukocyte segmentation in tissue images using differential evolution algorithm. Swarm Evol Comput 11:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bansal JC, Sharma H, Jadon SS, Clerc M (2014) Spider monkey optimization algorithm for numerical optimization. Memetic Comput 6(1):31–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chhikara RR, Sharma P, Singh L (2016) A hybrid feature selection approach based on improved pso and filter approaches for image steganalysis. Int J Mach Learn Cybernet 7:1195–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mohammadi FG, Abadeh MS (2014) Image steganalysis using a bee colony based feature selection algorithm. Eng Appl Artif Intell 31:35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-Pour H, Saryazdi S (2009) Gsa: a gravitational search algorithm. Inf Sci 179:2232–2248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Emary E, Zawbaa HM, Grosan C, Hassenian AE (2015) Feature subset selection approach by gray-wolf optimization. In: Afro-European conference for industrial advancement, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Swami V, Kumar S, Jain S (2018) An improved spider monkey optimization algorithm. In: Soft computing: theories and applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 73–81Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kumar S, Kumari R, Sharma VK (2015) Fitness based position update in spider monkey optimization algorithm. Procedia Comput Sci 62:442–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kumar S, Sharma VK, Kumari R (2014) Modified position update in spider monkey optimization algorithm. Int J Emerg Technol Comput Appl Sci 2:198–204Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Agrawal A, Farswan P, Agrawal V, Tiwari D, Bansal JC (2017) On the hybridization of spider monkey optimization and genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of sixth international conference on soft computing for problem solving. Springer, pp 185–196Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kumar S, Sharma VK, Kumari R (2014) Self-adaptive spider monkey optimization algorithm for engineering optimization problems. JIMS8I-Int J Inf Commun Comput Technol 2(2):96–107Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sharma A, Sharma H, Bhargava A, Sharma N, Bansal JC (2016) Optimal power flow analysis using lévy flight spider monkey optimisation algorithm. Int J Artif Intell Soft Comput 5(4):320–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sharma A, Sharma H, Bhargava A, Sharma N (2017) Power law-based local search in spider monkey optimisation for lower order system modelling. Int J Syst Sci 48(1):150–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sharma A, Sharma H, Bhargava A, Sharma N, Bansal JC (2017) Optimal placement and sizing of capacitor using limaçon inspired spider monkey optimization algorithm. Memetic Comput 9(4):311–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sharma H, Hazrati G, Bansal JC (2019) Spider monkey optimization algorithm. In: Evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms. Springer, pp 43–59Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Juan L, Gwun O (2009) A comparison of sift, pca-sift and surf. Int J Image Process (IJIP) 3(4):143–152Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Leung T, Malik J (2001) Representing and recognizing the visual appearance of materials using three-dimensional textons. Int J Comput Vis 43(1):29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mittal H, Pal R, Kulhari A, Saraswat M (2016) Chaotic kbest gravitational search algorithm (ckgsa). In: Ninth international conference on contemporary computing (IC3), 2016, IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Feng Y, Teng G-F, Wang A-X, Yao Y-M (2007) Chaotic inertia weight in particle swarm optimization. In: Second international conference on innovative computing, information and control, 2007. ICICIC’07, IEEE, pp 475–475Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yang X-S (2014) Nature-inspired optimization algorithms. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Simon D (2013) Evolutionary optimization algorithms. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jamil M, Yang X-S (2013) A literature survey of benchmark functions for global optimisation problems. Int J Math Model Numer Optim 4:150–194zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Derrac J, García S, Molina D, Herrera F (2011) A practical tutorial on the use of nonparametric statistical tests as a methodology for comparing evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms. Swarm Evol Comput 1:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Amity University RajasthanJaipurIndia
  2. 2.Jagannath UniversityJaipurIndia

Personalised recommendations