Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Special Issue
  • Published:
Evolutionary Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wang Z, Li H, Zhu Y, Xu T (2017) Review of plant identification based on image processing. Arch Comput Methods Eng 24(3):637–654

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Singh V, Misra A (2017) Detection of plant leaf diseases using image segmentation and soft computing techniques. Inf Process Agric 4(1):41–49

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bhattacharya B, Solomatine DP (2006) Machine learning in soil classification. Neural Netw 19(2):186–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Multiclass svm link (2018). http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/33170-multi-class-support-vector-machine

  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 411–415

  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 1:15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 489–498

  8. Mayne PW (2007) Cone penetration testing, vol 368. Transportation Research Board, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang Z, Tumay MT (1999) Statistical to fuzzy approach toward cpt soil classification. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(3):179–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Saraswat M, Arya K (2014) Feature selection and classification of leukocytes using random forest. Med Biol Eng Comput 52:1041–1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 solving

  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 91–98

  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):119–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 403–410

  15. Ojala T, Pietikäinen M, Harwood D (1996) A comparative study of texture measures with classification based on featured distributions. Pattern Recogn 29(1):51–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 886–893

  17. Lowe DG (2004) Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int J Comput Vis 60(2):91–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 1–2

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Saraswat M, Arya K, Sharma H (2013) Leukocyte segmentation in tissue images using differential evolution algorithm. Swarm Evol Comput 11:46–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bansal JC, Sharma H, Jadon SS, Clerc M (2014) Spider monkey optimization algorithm for numerical optimization. Memetic Comput 6(1):31–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 7:1195–1206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mohammadi FG, Abadeh MS (2014) Image steganalysis using a bee colony based feature selection algorithm. Eng Appl Artif Intell 31:35–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-Pour H, Saryazdi S (2009) Gsa: a gravitational search algorithm. Inf Sci 179:2232–2248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 1–13

  26. Swami V, Kumar S, Jain S (2018) An improved spider monkey optimization algorithm. In: Soft computing: theories and applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 73–81

  27. Kumar S, Kumari R, Sharma VK (2015) Fitness based position update in spider monkey optimization algorithm. Procedia Comput Sci 62:442–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kumar S, Sharma VK, Kumari R (2014) Modified position update in spider monkey optimization algorithm. Int J Emerg Technol Comput Appl Sci 2:198–204

    Google Scholar 

  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 185–196

  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):96–107

    Google Scholar 

  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):320–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):150–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):311–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sharma H, Hazrati G, Bansal JC (2019) Spider monkey optimization algorithm. In: Evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms. Springer, pp 43–59

  35. Juan L, Gwun O (2009) A comparison of sift, pca-sift and surf. Int J Image Process (IJIP) 3(4):143–152

    Google Scholar 

  36. Leung T, Malik J (2001) Representing and recognizing the visual appearance of materials using three-dimensional textons. Int J Comput Vis 43(1):29–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 1–6

  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 475–475

  39. Yang X-S (2014) Nature-inspired optimization algorithms. Elsevier, Amsterdam

  40. Simon D (2013) Evolutionary optimization algorithms. Wiley, New York

  41. Jamil M, Yang X-S (2013) A literature survey of benchmark functions for global optimisation problems. Int J Math Model Numer Optim 4:150–194

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  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 1:3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Amity University Rajasthan, Jaipur, India

    Sandeep Kumar & Ramesh C. Poonia

  2. Jagannath University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

    Basudev Sharma & Vivek Kumar Sharma

Authors
  1. Sandeep Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Basudev Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vivek Kumar Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ramesh C. Poonia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramesh C. Poonia.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, S., Sharma, B., Sharma, V.K. et al. Automated soil prediction using bag-of-features and chaotic spider monkey optimization algorithm. Evol. Intel. 14, 293–304 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-018-0186-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-018-0186-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation