A Thresholding Method to Estimate Quantities of Each Class

Kenta Azuma, Kohei Arai & Ishitsuka Naoki
International Journal of Applied Sciences (IJAS), Volume (3) : Issue (2), 2012 35
A Thresholding Method to Estimate Quantities of Each Class
Kenta Azuma azuma@imageone.co.jp
Graduate School of Science and Engineering
Saga University
Saga City, 840-8502, Japan
Kohei Arai arai@is.saga-u.ac.jp
Graduate School of Science and Engineering
Saga University
Saga City, 840-8502, Japan
Ishitsuka Naoki isituka@niaes.affrc.go.jp
Country Ecosystem Informatics Division
National Institute for Agro-Enviromental Sciences
Tsukuba City, 305-8604, Japan
Abstract
Thresholding method is a general tool for classification of a population. Various thresholding
methods have been proposed by many researchers. However, there are some cases in which
existing methods are not appropriate for a population analysis. For example, this is the case
when the objective of analysis is to select a threshold to estimate the total number of data (pixels)
of each classified population. In particular, If there is a significant difference between the total
numbers and/or variances of two populations, error possibilities in classification differ excessively
from each other. Consequently, estimated quantities of each classified population could be very
different from the actual one.
In this report, a new method which could be applied to select a threshold to estimate quantities of
classes more precisely in the above mentioned case is proposed. Then verification of features
and ranges of application of the proposed method by sample data analysis is presented.
Keywords: Thresholding, Classification, Quantity of a class, Counting accuracy, Synthetic
aperture radar.
1. INTRODUCTION
Thresholding method is a general tool for classification of a population. This method is one of the
picture binarization techniques. Various thresholding methods have been proposed by many
researchers. These thresholding methods were listed and evaluated by Dr. Sahoo and Dr. Wong
in the field of image processing [1]. These methods ware categorized as point dependent
techniques[2][3][4][5][6][7], region dependent techniques[8][9][10][11][12] and multi-
thresholding[13][14][15]. In the field of classical image processing “Uniformity index” and “Shape
index” are used to evaluate an analysis and a threshold. These indexes can evaluate for visibility
and legibility of a character and an object in a classified image. By contrast, “overall accuracy” is
used to evaluate in field of classification of many applications. Especially, some methods
proposed by Dr. Otsu [16][17], Dr. Kittler et al. [18][19] and Dr. Kurita et al. [20][21] have a simple
algorithm and are easy for data handling and can get high accuracy results. Hence, these
techniques have been applied for a lot of classification analysis. These are effective methods for
increasing the overall accuracy of analysis. However, there are some cases in which these
methods are not appropriate for a population analysis.
For example, this is the case when the objective of analysis is to select a threshold to estimate
the total number of data (pixels) of each classified population. In particular, If there is significant

difference between the total numbers and/or variances of two populations, error possibilities in
classification differ excessively from each other. Consequently, estimated total number of each
classified population could be very different from the actual one.
For the field of remote sensing, there are many cases which the area of a target is estimated
using a satellite data [22][23][24][25]. The purpose of these analyses is just to estimate the total
number of data (pixels) of each classified population.
In this report, authors propose a new method which could be applied to specify a threshold to
estimate the quantity of data more precisely in the above mentioned case. And this method is
applied for estimation of planting area of rice paddy using a synthetic aperture radar (hereinafter
referred to as SAR) data. Then some advantageous effects of the proposed method are shown.
2. METHOD FOR THRESHOLD SELECTION
Lets us consider the most appropriate threshold for classifying pixels from an image represented
in gray scale. Of course, the definition of the most appropriate threshold depends on its purpose.
In this paper, we propose a threshold to estimate the quantities, total amount of data, of each
classified population most precisely.
In the past, purpose of most thresholding methods was to decrease the number of
misclassifications. This analysis is to improve the overall accuracy of a classification. However,
the most appropriate threshold to estimate the quantities of each classified population differs from
a threshold to make the overall accuracy highest. For example, even if the overall accuracy is
high, it could happen that an estimated quantity differs from true value grossly when there is an
excessive difference between the parameters including total amount of pixels and deviations of
each class. On the contrary, even if there may be many misclassifications, estimated quantities of
each class could be very similar to true values when the numbers of misclassifications of each
class are very similar to each other. Therefore the most appropriate threshold to estimate
quantities of each class is a threshold which can minimize the difference between the numbers of
misclassifications of each class.
Pixel value
Probabilitydensity
FIGURE 1: Probability density functions and misclassifications of each class
Let the pixels of given image be represented in gray levels g = {1,2,…,L}. The histogram of the
gray levels in this image is denoted by h(g). Then the probability density function of gray levels is
given by p(g)=h(g)/N, where N is the total number of pixels in the image. Now supposing that the
p(g) is a mixed population compounded of class 1 (i=1) and class 2 (i=2), distributions of each
class are denoted by p(g|i) and a prior probabilities by Pi. The probability density function of gray
levels is also given by

( ) ( ) ( )i|gpP=
N
gh
=gp
=i
i∑
2
1
. (1)
These parameters are shown in Figure 1. Where Broken line is the distribution of input data, Solid
lines are distributions of each class estimated by optimization and Striped areas, e1(k) and e2(k)
denote misclassifications should be considered at first. Supposing that the pixels are categorized
into two classes by threshold at level k, pixels not more than threshold k can be classified into
class 1. On the other hand, pixels which are more than threshold k can be classified into class 2.
In this case, the total number of class 1 and class 2 are given by
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )i|gpPN=gpN=kn
i|gpPN=gpN=kn
L
+k=g =i
i
L
+k=g
k
=g =i
i
k
=g
∑ ∑∑
∑∑∑
1
2
11
2
1
2
11
1
. (2)
The number of pixels belonging to class 1 which are misclassified into class 2 is denoted by e1(k).
And the number of pixels belonging to class 2 which are misclassified into class 1 is denoted by
e2(k). These are given by
( ) ( )
( ) ( )2
1
1
22
1
11
|gpPN=ke
|gpPN=ke
k
g=
L
+kg=
∑
∑
. (3)
Then, an assumption that e1(k) and e2(k) are approximated when the threshold k is equal to the
value τ is introduced. In other words, the value τ can minimize the criterion function
( ) ( ) ( )( )keke=kε 21 − . (4)
In this case, the total number of the pixels classified into class 1 can be evaluated as
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) 1
L
=g
L
+τ=g
τ
=g
τ
=g
2
NPτn
|gpPNτn
|gpPN+|gpPNτn
|gpP+|gpPN=τn
≈
≈
≈
∑
∑∑
∑
1
1
11
1
1
1
11
1
11
1
11
21
. (5)
Thus, the total number of pixels classified into class 1 is very close to the true value. Similarly the
total number of the pixels classified into class 2 can be evaluated as
( ) 2NPτn ≈2 . (6)
Also the total number of pixels classified into class 2 is very close to the true value.
As a result, using the threshold τ which can minimize the difference between the numbers of
misclassification pixels of class 1 and class 2, the quantity of classified pixels can be
approximated to the true value. In order to compute the threshold τ which can minimize the
criterion function ε(k) = |e1(k)- e2(k)|, following procedures are needed.
• To formulate a histogram and a probability density function from an input image.
• To optimize a histogram to a mixed population.
• To calculate the threshold τ which can minimize the criterion function from the mixed population.

In order to optimize a histogram and the threshold τ an optimization technique (e.g., the steepest
descent method, the downhill simplex [26], the simulated annealing [27]) has to be used.
The result of classification is evaluated using a confusion matrix first. The confusion matrix is
shown in Table 1, where, n is the number of evaluated pixels, the first subscript denotes a class
number of the classified image, the second subscript denotes a class number of the correct
classification result and a symbol “+” denotes summation. In particular, n11 and n22 denote the
number of pixels which were classified correctly. n12 and n21 denote the number of pixels which
were classified as false. ni+ denote the number of pixels which were classified into class i. And Ni
denotes the correct number of pixels belonging to class 1.
TABLE 1: Confusion matrix for evaluation
True Data
Class1 Class2 Σ
Classifier
Class1 n11 n12 n1+
Class2 n21 n22 n2+
Σ N1 N2 N
After evaluation by the confusion matrix, typically the result of classification is evaluated using the
overall accuracy O, the producer's accuracy P and the user's accuracy U [28]. These accuracies
are given by
O=
∑
i=1
2
nii
N ,
Pi=
nii
Ni
,
Ui=
nii
ni+
.
(7)
These accuracies are useful to evaluate a result of classification. However those may not be
suitable for evaluation of a threshold value. For example, this is the case when the numbers of
each class differ widely. In this case, an accuracy of majority class becomes dominant in the
overall accuracy. And an accuracy of minority class is neglected. In the result, the greater the
number of estimated pixels which are classified to the majority class, the greater the overall
accuracy is increased. So the overall accuracy is not suitable to evaluate a threshold value.
Furthermore, the producer's accuracy is improved when a threshold changes in a direction which
classifies pixels more into a target class. The user's accuracy is also improved when a threshold
changes in a direction which classifies pixels less into a target class. Thus, these accuracies are
not suitable to evaluate a threshold because it is possible that those are improved by an unfair
threshold.
Accordingly, we use a new accuracy to evaluate a threshold to estimate the quantities of class
populations. We call the new accuracy a “counting accuracy” in this paper and define it as
Ci=
ni+
Ni
.
(8)
The counting accuracy is a ratio between a quantity classified into class i and a correct quantity of
class i. It directly compares a quantity classified into class i and a correct quantity of class i. So
the counting accuracy can evaluate the result of classification directly and can evaluate also the
threshold indirectly, when our purpose of classification is to estimate the quantities of classified
populations.
3. FEATURE
Theory of the proposed method was presented in the second chapter. However, can the
expected result be taken by the proposed method? A validation of the effects and the works using

a data set is needed. To confirm the feature of the suggested method, comparison analysis
between the results of the proposed method and existing methods are conducted. At first, ten
sample input images are prepared. Every sample images have two classes and consist of
1,000,000 pixels. Each class goes along gaussian distribution. Two examples of the probability
density functions are shown in Figure 2. Then number of pixels Ni, average µ i and standard
deviation σi for each class are shown in Table 2, where i denotes class number. Each image has
a different number of pixels and a different standard deviation for each class. The results in case
that there are various distributions of each class can be confirmed by the analysis of using these
sample images.
Pixel value
Probabilitydensity
Pixel value
Probabilitydensity
(a) for sample input image No.4 (b) for sample input image No.8
FIGURE 2: Example of the probability density function for each sample input image
TABLE 2: Then number of pixels Ni, average µi and standard deviation σi for each class
Sample
input image
N1 µ1 σ1 N2 µ2 σ2
No.1 500,000 80 10 500,000 150 10
No.2 500,000 80 10 500,000 150 30
No.3 500,000 80 20 500,000 150 20
No.4 500,000 80 30 500,000 150 10
No.5 500,000 80 30 500,000 150 30
No.6 900,000 80 10 100,000 150 10
No.7 900,000 80 10 100,000 150 30
No.8 900,000 80 20 100,000 150 20
No.9 900,000 80 30 100,000 150 10
No.10 900,000 80 30 100,000 150 30
Selections of three thresholds using three methods are conducted respectively. One method is
the proposed method while the other two methods are the Otsu's thresholding (hereinafter
referred to as the Otsu thresholding) and the minimum error thresholding by Kittler and
Illingworth's (hereinafter referred to as the Kitter thresholding). In case of Otsu thresholding, a
threshold which makes η=σB/σW maximum is selected by the downhill simplex method [26].
Where σB is intra-class variance and σW is inter-class variance. On the other hand, in case of the
Kitller thresholding, a threshold which makes an evaluation function J minimum is selected by the
downhill simplex method. In the case of the proposed method, we optimized some parameters of
a mixed gaussian distribution to match a probability density function of input image using the
multivariate downhill simplex method. Then, we got a threshold which makes the criterion function

ε(k) = |e1(k)- e2(k)| minimum from some parameters of the mixed gaussian distribution using the
downhill simplex method [26].
In the result, when numbers of pixels and standard deviations of two classes were equal (for
sample image No.1, No.3 and No.5), each of the three thresholding methods selected same
thresholds.
For each sample input image, we classified a pixel less than or equal to a threshold into class 1.
In reverse, we classified a pixel bigger than a threshold into class 2. Then some classified images
were created.
To evaluate the result of classifications, we compared the classified images with the correct
classification results which we made first. Then, we made a confusion matrix which is shown in
Table 1 from each result of evaluations. All elements of the confusion matrices for all evaluations
are shown in Table 3. At the end, we calculated a overall accuracy O, a producer's accuracy P, a
user's accuracy U and a counting accuracy C from the elements of the confusion matrices for
each classifications. The results are shown in Table 4.
For sample input image No.1 and No.6 of which two classes were separated clearly, any
accuracy of all methods was just about 100%. For sample input images of which the number of
pixels and the standard deviations of the two classes were equal, the accuracies of each method
did not differ clearly. However, for sample image No.2 and No.4 of which the standard deviations
between the two classes were different, the most accurate overall accuracies were obtained by
the Kittler thresholding. And the most exact counting accuracies were obtained by the proposed
method. Furthermore, the Otsu method and the Kittler method make a big difference between a
user's accuracy and a producer's accuracy. By contrast, the proposed method made a user's
accuracy and a producer's accuracy approximate each other. Also for sample input images from
No.6 to No.10, the most accurate counting accuracies were obtained by the proposed method
being compared with other methods. Sample image No. 10 is convex shape. That means it is not
biphasic distribution. However the proposed method can classify sample image No.10 with high
accuracy. And the proposed method made the least difference between a user's accuracy and a
producer's accuracy.
TABLE 3: Evaluated elements of confusion matrices
Sample
image
Method n11 n12 N1+ N1 n21 n22 n2+ N2
No.1 Otsu 499,886 102 499,988 500,000 114 499,898 500,012 500,000
Kittler 499,888 106 499,994 500,000 112 499,894 500,006 500,000
proposed 499,887 102 499,989 500,000 113 499,898 500,011 500,000
No.2 Otsu 414,754 6 414,760 500,000 85,246 499,994 585,240 500,000
Kittler 466,625 3,144 469,769 500,000 33,375 496,856 530,231 500,000
proposed 479,767 19,959 499,726 500,000 20,233 480,041 500,274 500,000
No.3 Otsu 479,842 19,984 499,826 500,000 20,158 480,016 500,174 500,000
Kittler 479,904 20,051 499,955 500,000 20,096 479,949 500,045 500,000
proposed 479,904 20,051 499,955 500,000 20,096 479,949 500,045 500,000
No.4 Otsu 499,995 84,938 584,933 500,000 5 415,062 415,067 500,000
Kittler 496,668 32,943 529,611 500,000 3,332 467,057 470,389 500,000
proposed 479,879 20,076 499,955 500,000 20,121 479,924 500,045 500,000
No.5 Otsu 439,178 60,812 499,990 500,000 60,822 439,188 500,010 500,000
Kittler 438,272 59,885 498,157 500,000 61,728 440,115 501,843 500,000
proposed 436,012 57,771 493,783 500,000 63,988 442,229 506,217 500,000
No.6 Otsu 99,974 238 100,212 100,000 26 899,762 899,788 900,000
Kittler 99,922 64 99,986 100,000 78 899,936 900,014 900,000
proposed 99,924 73 99,997 100,000 76 899,927 900,003 900,000
No.7 Otsu 84,797 36 84,833 100,000 15,203 899,964 915,167 900,000
Kittler 90,152 718 90,870 100,000 9,848 899,282 909,130 900,000

proposed 93,617 6,303 99,920 100,000 6,383 893,697 900,080 900,000
No.8 Otsu 99,059 117,060 216,119 100,000 941 782,940 783,881 900,000
Kittler 80,660 3,773 84,433 100,000 19,340 896,227 915,567 900,000
proposed 89,054 10,398 99,452 100,000 10,946 889,602 900,548 900,000
No.9 Otsu 100,000 302,704 402,704 100,000 0 597,296 597,296 900,000
Kittler 99,977 109,844 209,821 100,000 23 790,156 790,179 900,000
proposed 81,186 18,659 99,845 100,000 18,814 881,341 900,155 900,000
No.10 Otsu 97,213 297,742 394,955 100,000 2,787 602,258 605,045 900,000
Kittler 87,928 109,509 197,437 100,000 12,072 790,491 802,563 900,000
proposed 71,065 34,317 105,382 100,000 28,935 865,683 894,618 900,000
TABLE 4: Result of evaluation for each sample images (Overall accuracy, Producer's accuracy, User's
accuracy and Counting accuracy for each class)
Sample
image
Method O P1 U1 C1 P2 U2 C2
No.1 Otsu 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Kittler 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
proposed 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
No.2 Otsu 91.5% 83.0% 100.0% 83.0% 100.0% 85.4% 117.1%
Kittler 96.4% 93.3% 99.3% 94.0% 99.4% 93.7% 106.1%
proposed 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% 100.0% 96.0% 96.0% 100.1%
No.3 Otsu 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% 100.0% 96.0% 96.0% 100.0%
Kittler 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% 100.0% 96.0% 96.0% 100.0%
proposed 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% 100.0% 96.0% 96.0% 100.0%
No.4 Otsu 91.5% 100.0% 85.5% 117.0% 83.0% 100.0% 83.0%
Kittler 96.4% 99.3% 93.8% 105.9% 93.4% 99.3% 94.1%
proposed 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% 100.0% 96.0% 96.0% 100.0%
No.5 Otsu 87.8% 87.8% 87.8% 100.0% 87.8% 87.8% 100.0%
Kittler 87.8% 87.7% 88.0% 99.6% 88.0% 87.7% 100.4%
proposed 87.8% 87.2% 88.3% 98.8% 88.5% 87.4% 101.2%
No.6 Otsu 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Kittler 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
proposed 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
No.7 Otsu 98.5% 84.8% 100.0% 84.8% 100.0% 98.3% 101.7%
Kittler 98.9% 90.2% 99.2% 90.9% 99.9% 98.9% 101.0%
proposed 98.7% 93.6% 93.7% 99.9% 99.3% 99.3% 100.0%
No.8 Otsu 88.2% 99.1% 45.8% 216.1% 87.0% 99.9% 87.1%
Kittler 97.7% 80.7% 95.5% 84.4% 99.6% 97.9% 101.7%
proposed 97.9% 89.1% 89.5% 99.5% 98.8% 98.8% 100.1%
No.9 Otsu 69.7% 100.0% 24.8% 402.7% 66.4% 100.0% 66.4%
Kittler 89.0% 100.0% 47.7% 209.8% 87.8% 100.0% 87.8%
proposed 96.3% 81.2% 81.3% 99.9% 97.9% 97.9% 100.0%
No.10 Otsu 70.0% 97.2% 24.6% 395.0% 66.9% 99.5% 67.2%
Kittler 87.8% 87.9% 44.5% 197.4% 87.8% 98.5% 89.2%
proposed 93.7% 71.1% 67.4% 105.4% 96.2% 96.8% 99.4%
It should be noted that the Otsu method and the Kittler method make a big difference between a
user's accuracy and a producer's accuracy, because these methods make a big difference
between the number of classified pixels ni+ and the number of correct classification pixel Ni, too.
On the other hand, the proposed method decreases the difference between a user's accuracy
and a producer's accuracy, because the method makes the number of classified pixels ni+ and the
number of correct classification pixel Ni approximate each other. Accordingly, the proposed
method can select a threshold to improve the counting accuracy C. In other words, the proposed
method can estimate the number of pixels of a class with more precision than other methods.

4. RANGE OF APPLICATION
The proposed method selects a threshold by statistical algorithm. Thus, a sufficient number of
input data are required in order to stabilize a result. Verifying analysis of a sufficient quantity of
input data to stabilize a threshold and a classification under the assumption of estimating a
planting area of paddy using a SAR data (RADARSAT-2, Ultra-Fine, 2009/6/6) from a satellite is
conducted.
At first, inspection of a distribution of backscattering coefficients of SAR data for each field is
implemented. Then it becomes clear that the distribution is similar to a mixed gaussian
distribution（refer to Figure 3）. Some input data sets which have 10 to 10,000,000 sample data
and the same distribution are prepared. At the Time, a class of the sample data belongs was
defined in order to evaluate accuracies after classifications.
FIGURE 3: A result of optimization of a mixed distribution which used RADARSAT-2 data
As a result of validation of the stable number of input samples, stable thresholds were not
obtained when we used less than 1000 samples with this distribution data. In contrast, stable
thresholds were obtained using more than 1000 samples by any threshold method (refer to
Figure 4).
FIGURE 4: Variation in a threshold when the number of input samples was changed.
Furthermore, as a result of evaluating accuracies of classifications, accuracies of each method
were reversed at each data set when we used less than 10,000 samples for evaluation. In other

hand, stable accuracies were obtained when we used more than 10,000 samples. This means
that 10,000 samples are required at least (refer to Figure 5 and Figure 6).
FIGURE 5: Variation in a overall accuracy when the number of input samples was changed.
FIGURE 6: Variation in a counting accuracy when the number of input samples was changed.
Accordingly, distributions with at least 1,000 samples are required in order to obtain a stable
threshold. And at least 10,000 samples are required in order to compare the accuracies of each
thresholding method.
5. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the method we proposed can select a threshold which equalizes two amounts of
incorrect classifications of each class. This method has a unique objective which is to select a
threshold to estimate the total number of data (pixels) of each classified population. Furthermore
by comparing the proposed method with the existing methods, we showed the proposed method
has the following advantages.
• A higher counting accuracy can be obtained than with the existing methods.
•The method can equalize a user's accuracy and a producer's accuracy more than the other
methods.
• The proposed method is valid even if there are biases of amounts and deviations in each class.
• The proposed method is valid even if input data do not have a biphasic distribution.
The distribution characteristics of input data must be known when the proposed method is
utilized. In addition, the application of proposed method has the following characteristics:

• The proposed method can be used not only for an image data but also for a numerical data.
• At least 1,000 samples are required in order to obtain a stable threshold.
• At least 10,000 samples are required in order to compare with the accuracies of some
thresholding methods.
For actual applications, sometimes the number of input data and true data for evaluation are not
sufficiency. In this case, it is difficult to apply the proposed method into the analysis. Furthermore,
it is also difficult to use an input data having a unknown distribution as input class. This is
because an assuming or a knowing a distributed shape is needed for the proposed method.
It should be noted that the result is an example for estimating a planting area of paddy using
some specific data. We showed some characteristics and ranges of application of the proposed
method. The method has some advantages for thresholding and classification. However, the
most specified characteristic of the proposed method is its objective. A purpose of the existing
methods is to decrease errors of a classification. On the other hand, the purpose of the proposed
method is to estimate quantities, data volumes, of classes through a classification analysis. Of
course, classical statistic method could estimate quantity of a class. But it cannot classify sample
data. The proposed method can coordinate a result of a classification and a result of quantity
estimation. The proposed method is definitely useful when both classification and quantity
estimation of a class are required.
Almost all data have some noise. So, validations of resistance to some noises will be conducted
in the future. After an adaptive limits are known, solutions which can be applied the proposed
method will be findable. Application of the proposed method to various field analyses would be a
major topic in next step.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am deeply grateful to Imageone Co. Ltd. for providing RADARSAT-2 data to us. Special thanks
also Mr. Toshio Azuma whose comments and suggestions were innumerably valuable.
7. REFERENCES
[1] P. K. Sahoo, S. Soltani, and A. K. C. Wong, (1988), "A Survey of Thresholding Techniques",
Computer Vision Graphics and Image Processing, Vol. 41, pp. 233-260.
[2] W. Doyle, (1962), “Operation useful for similarity-invariant pattern recognition”, J. Assoc.
Comput.er, Vol. 9, pp. 259-267.
[3] J. M. S. Prewitt and M. L. Mendelsohn, (1983), “The analysis of cell images”, in Ann. New
York Acad. Sci. Vol128, pp 1035-1053, New York Acad. Sci., New York, 1966.
[4] T. Pun, (1980), “A new method for gray-level picture thresholding using the entropy of the
histogram”, Signal Process. Vol. 2, pp. 223-237.
[5] J. N. Kapur, P. K. Sahoo, and A. K. C. Wong, (1985), “A new method for gray-level picture
thresholding using the entropy of the histogram”, Computer. Vision Graphics Image Process. Vol.
29, pp. 273-285.
[6] G. Johannsen and J. Bille, (1982), “A threshold selection method using information
measures”, in Proceedings, 6th Znt. Conf. Pattern Recognition, Munich, Germany, pp. 140-143.
[7] W. Tsai, (1985), “Moment-preserving thresholding: A new approach”, Computer Vision
Graphics Image Process. Vol. 29, pp. 377-393.
[8] D. Mason, I. J. Lauder, D. Rutoritz, and G. Spowart, (1975), “Measurement of C-Bands in
human chromosomes”, Computer. Biol. Med. Vol. 5, pp. 179-201.

[9] N. Ahuja and A. Rosenfeld, (1978), “A note on the use of second-order gray-level statistics for
threshold selection”, IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernet. SMC-8, pp. 895-899.
[10] R. L. Kirby and A. Rosenfeld, (1979), “A note on the use of (gray level, local average gray
level) space as an aid in thresholding selection”, IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernet. SMC-9, pp.
860-864.
[11] F. Deravi and S. K. Pal, (1983), “Gray level thresholding using second-order statistics”,
Pattern Recognit. Zett. Vol. 1, pp. 417-422.
[12] R. Southwell, (1940), “Relaxation Methods in Engineering Science, A Treatise on
Approximate Computation”, Oxford Univ. Press, London.
[13] S. Boukharouba, J. M. Rebordao, and P. L. Wendel, (1985), “An amplitude segmentation
method based on the distribution function of an image”, Computer Vision Graphics Image
Process. Vol. 29, pp. 47-59.
[14] S. Wang and R. M. Haralick, (1984), “Automatic multithreshold selection”, Computer Vision
Graphics Image Process. Vol. 25, pp. 46-67.
[15] R. Kohler, (1981), “A segmentation system based on thresholding”, Computer Graphics
Image Process. Vol. 15, pp. 319-338.
[16] N. Otsu. (1980, App.). “An Automatic Threshold Selection Method Based on Discriminant
and Least Squares Criteria.” IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Fundamentals of Electronics. Vol. J63-
D(4), pp. 349-356.
[17] N. Otsu. (1979, Jan.). “A Thresholding Selection Method from Gray-Level Histgrams.” IEEE
Transaction on Systems，Man, And Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-9(1), pp. 62-66.
[18] J. Kittler and J. Illingworth. (1986). “Minimum Error Thresholding.” Pattern Recognition，Vol.
19(1), pp. 41-47.
[19] J. Kittler. (2004). “Fast branch and bound algorithms for optimal feature selection.” IEEE
Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 26(7), pp. 900-912.
[20] I. Sekita, T. Kurita, N. Otsu and N. N. Abdelmalek. (1995, Dec.). “Thresholding Methods
Considering the Quantization Error of an Image.” IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Fundamentals of
Electronics. Vol. J78-D-2(12), pp. 1806-1812.
[21] T. Kurita, N. Otsu and N. Abdelmalek (1992, Oct.). “Maximum Likelihood Thresholding Based
on Population Mixture Models.” Pattern Recognition，Vol. 25(10), pp. 1231-1240.
[22] M. Katoh, T. Tsushima and M. Kanno. (1999, Nov.). “Monitoring of Ishikari river model forest
for sustainable forest management, Grasp and monitor of forest area using satellite data.”
Hoppou Ringyo. Vol. 51(11), pp. 271-274.
[23] H. Takeuchi, T. Konishi, Y. Suga and Y. Oguro. (2000, Sep.). “Rice-Planted Area Estimation
in Early Stage Using Space-Borne SAR Data.” Journal of the Japan Society of Photogrammetry.
Vol. 39(4), pp. 25-30.
[24] W. Takeuchi, Y. Yasuoka. (2005, Jan.). “Mapping of fractional coverage of paddy fields over
East Asia using MODIS data.” Journal of the Japan Society of Photogrammetry. Vol. 43(6), pp.
20-33.
[25] A. Sutaryanto, M. Kunitake, S. Sugio and C. Deguchi. (1995, May). “Calculation of Percent
Imperviousness by using Satellite Data and Application to Runoff Analysis.” Journal of the
Agricultural Engineering Society Japan, Vol. 63(5), pp. 23-28.
[26] K. Amaya. (2008, May). Kougaku no tameno saitekika shuhou nyuumon [Introduction to
optimization techniques for engineering]. Tokyo: Suuri Kougakusha, 2008.
[27] K. Arai and X. Liang. (2003, App.). “Method for Estimation of Refractive Index and Size
Distribution of Aerosol Using Direct and Diffuse Solar Irradiance as well as Aureole by Means of a

Modified Simulated Annealing.” The Journal of the Remote Sensing Society of Japan. Vol. 23(1),
pp. 11-20.
[28] G. M. Foody. “Classification Accuracy Assessment.” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Society Newsletter(2011, Jun.), pp 8-14, 2011.

A Thresholding Method to Estimate Quantities of Each Class

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to A Thresholding Method to Estimate Quantities of Each Class (20)

More from Waqas Tariq (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A Thresholding Method to Estimate Quantities of Each Class