Applying Polynomial Learning for Soil Detection Based on Gabor Wavelet and Teager Kaiser Energy Operator

  • Kamel H. RahoumaEmail author
  • Rabab Hamed M. Aly
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 921)


Soil detection is playing an important role in the environmental research. It helps the farmers to determine what kind of plants they can have. Also, it may help to mix plants in certain areas or farm new types. The main target of this paper is to classify the different types of soil. On the other hand, there are many researches which focus on the classification and detection process based on different applications of image processing and computer vision. The paper has two main goals. The first goal is to improve the extraction of soil features based on Gabor wavelet transform but followed by the Teager-Kaiser Operator. The second goal is to classify the types of soil based on group method data handling (polynomial neural networks). We applied these methods using different data sets of soil. Compared with previous work and research, we achieved accuracy limits of (98%–100%) while the previous algorithms were accurate to the limits of (95.1%–98.8%). Behind this improvement in accuracy, there are the methods we used here including the Teager Kaiser operator with Gabor wavelet and polynomial neural networks which have been proved to be more accurate than the methods used before.


Soil detection Gabor wavelet Polynomial neural network (PNN) Teager-Kaiser 


  1. Bhattacharya, B., Solomatine, D.P.: Machine learning in soil classification. Neural Networks 19, 186–195 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boudraa, A.-O., Salzenstein, F.: Teager-Kaiser energy methods for signal and image analysis: a review. Digit. Signal Process. 78, 338–375 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheng, G., Han, J.: A survey on object detection in optical remote sensing images. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 117, 11–28 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dallali, A., Kachouri, A., Samet, M.: Fuzzy C-means clustering, Neural Network, WT, and HRV for classification of cardiac arrhythmia. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 6, 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. Ford, W., Land, W.: A latent space support vector machine (LSSVM) model for cancer prognosis. Procedia Comput. Sci. 36, 470–475 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Khare, R.K., Sinha, G., Kumar, S.: Mass segmentation techniques for lung cancer CT images. Int. J. Recent Innovation Trends Comput. Commun. 5, 184–187 (2017)Google Scholar
  7. Lu, Y., Perez, D., Dao, M., Kwan, C., Li, J.: Deep learning with synthetic hyperspectral images for improved soil detection in multispectral imagery. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference, New York, NY, USA, pp. 8–10 (2018)Google Scholar
  8. Nabizadeh, N., Kubat, M.: Brain tumors detection and segmentation in MR images: gabor wavelet vs. statistical features. Comput. Electr. Eng. 45, 286–301 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Odgers, N.P., McBratney, A.B.: Soil material classes. Pedometrics, pp. 223–264 (2018)Google Scholar
  10. Perez, D., Banerjee, D., Kwan, C., Dao, M., Shen, Y., Koperski, K., Marchisio, G., Li, J.: Deep learning for effective detection of excavated soil related to illegal tunnel activities. In: 2017 IEEE 8th Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON) 2017, pp. 626–632. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  11. Pham, B.T., Bui, D.T., Prakash, I., Dholakia, M.: Hybrid integration of Multilayer Perceptron Neural Networks and machine learning ensembles for landslide susceptibility assessment at Himalayan area (India) using GIS. Catena 149, 52–63 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Potter, C., Weigand, J.: Imaging analysis of biological soil crusts to understand surface heating properties in the Mojave Desert of California. CATENA 170, 1–9 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rahouma, K.H., Muhammad, R.H., Hamed, H.F., Eldahab, M.A.A.: Analysis of electrocardiogram for heart performance diagnosis based on wavelet transform and prediction of future complications. Egypt. Comput. Sci. J. 41 (2017). ISSN-1110-2586Google Scholar
  14. Sweilam, N.H., Tharwat, A., Moniem, N.A.: Support vector machine for diagnosis cancer disease: a comparative study. Egypt. Inf. J. 11, 81–92 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tekin, E., Akbas, S.O.: Predicting groutability of granular soils using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Neural Comput. Appl. (2017)Google Scholar
  16. Wang, L., Zhang, J., Liu, P., Choo, K.-K.R., Huang, F.: Spectral–spatial multi-feature-based deep learning for hyperspectral remote sensing image classification. Soft. Comput. 21, 213–221 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of EngineeringMinia UniversityMiniaEgypt
  2. 2.The Higher Institute for Management Technology and InformationMiniaEgypt

Personalised recommendations