{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016769144773616546, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.964980544747082, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Artificial immune‐based supervised classifier for land‐cover classification

This paper explores the potential of an artificial immune‐based supervised classification algorithm for land‐cover classification. This classifier is inspired by the human immune system and possesses properties similar to nonlinear classification, self/non‐self identification, and negative selection. Landsat ETM+ data of an area lying in Eastern England near the town of Littleport are used to study the performance of the artificial immune‐based classifier. A univariate decision tree and maximum likelihood classifier were used to compare its performance in terms of classification accuracy and computational cost. Results suggest that the artificial immune‐based classifier works well in comparison with the maximum likelihood and the decision‐tree classifiers in terms of classification accuracy. The computational cost using artificial immune based classifier is more than the decision tree but less than the maximum likelihood classifier. Another data set from an area in Spain is also used to compare the performance of immune based supervised classifier with maximum likelihood and decision‐tree classification algorithms. Results suggest an improved performance with the immune‐based classifier in terms of classification accuracy with this data set, too. The design of an artificial immune‐based supervised classifier requires several user‐defined parameters to be set, so this work is extended to study the effect of varying the values of six parameters on classification accuracy. Finally, a comparison with a backpropagation neural network suggests that the neural network classifier provides higher classification accuracies with both data sets, but the results are not statistically significant.