# A 3D-2D Convolutional Neural Network and Transfer Learning for Hyperspectral Image Classification

Authors: Douglas Omwenga Nyabuga; Jinling Song; Guohua Liu; Michael Adjeisah
Journal: Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

As one of the fast evolution of remote sensing and spectral imagery techniques, hyperspectral image (HSI) classification has attracted considerable attention in various fields, including land survey, resource monitoring, and among others. Nonetheless, due to a lack of distinctiveness in the hyperspectral pixels of separate classes, there is a recurrent inseparability obstacle in the primary space. Additionally, an open challenge stems from examining efficient techniques that can speedily classify and interpret the spectral-spatial data bands within a more precise computational time. Hence, in this work, we propose a 3D-2D convolutional neural network and transfer learning model where the early layers of the model exploit 3D convolutions to modeling spectral-spatial information. On top of it are 2D convolutional layers to handle semantic abstraction mainly. Toward simplicity and a highly modularized network for image classification, we leverage the ResNeXt-50 block for our model. Furthermore, improving the separability among classes and balance of the interclass and intraclass criteria, we engaged principal component analysis (PCA) for the best orthogonal vectors for representing information from HSIs before feeding to the network. The experimental result shows that our model can efficiently improve the hyperspectral imagery classification, including an instantaneous representation of the spectral-spatial information. Our model evaluation on five publicly available hyperspectral datasets, Indian Pines (IP), Pavia University Scene (PU), Salinas Scene (SA), Botswana (BS), and Kennedy Space Center (KSC), was performed with a high classification accuracy of 99.85%, 99.98%, 100%, 99.82%, and 99.71%, respectively. Quantitative results demonstrated that it outperformed several state-of-the-arts (SOTA), deep neural network-based approaches, and standard classifiers. Thus, it has provided more insight into hyperspectral image classification.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Hyperspectral images (HSIs) have hundreds of spectral bands that comprise detailed spectral information. As a result, HSI images have formed the foundation for a wide range of applications, including precision agriculture [1], resource surveys [2], target identification [3], and landscape classification [4]. Because visual classification can aid in interpreting HSI image scenes, classification is an essential domain in HSI image processing [5, 6]. However, high dimensionality, high nonlinearity, and an imbalance between the limited training samples of HSIs [7, 8] affect classification accuracy and make HSI classification difficult.To address the abovementioned challenges, dimensionality reduction (DR) [9–12] and semisupervised classification [13, 14] approaches have been extensively adopted for HSIs. Generally, there are two classes of DR, i.e., the band selection and feature extraction [15]. Among them, feature extraction [16–19] minimizes computational complexity by projecting high-dimensional data into low-dimensional data space and feature selection [20] picks appropriate bands from the original set of spectral bands. Further, a sparse-based method [21] has been used to derive useful spectral features. Nevertheless, PCA seeks out the best orthogonal vectors for representing information from HSIs [22, 23] with minimized spectral dimension (up to 85%). On the contrary, it improves the separability among classes, decreases, and brings a balance of the interclass and intraclass. Therefore, we used PCA as an effective tool to transform the original features into a new space with reduced dimensionality and more excellent distinctive features.Lately, a more innumerable center has been directed to the remote sensing (RS) study scope for HSI classification. However, the high-resolution features of HSI data make it challenging to understand and separate several land-cover classes, extract more major distinctive structures, and produce an unbiased HSI classification through the application of traditional machine learning (ML) approaches [24]. Nonetheless, the evolution of deep learning (DL) has exceptionally improved not only in RS but also in different research areas such as digital image processing (DIP), pattern recognition, segmentation, data classification, and object detection [25]. The tremendous progress in DL to analyze HSI [26] by many research works in the past years has somewhat solved the HSI classification problem through a proposed dual-path network (DPN). It combined two systems, specifically the dense-convolutional network and the residual network [27]. It engages an unsupervised greedy layer-wise training approach to interpret the RS images [28] for a pixel-block pair (PBP) exhibition. To find a solution for HSI classification, Song et al. [29] came up with a deep feature fusion network while Cheng et al. [30] adopted the off-the-shelf convolutional neural network (CNN) techniques. Li et al. [31] employed 3D-CNN, deep feature extraction for HSI classification. Mou et al. [32] considered an unsupervised model referred to as a deep residual conv-deconv network to resolve the HSI classification problem.However, the rarity of identifying the HSI pixels of the separable classes is a repeated integrated obstacle in the original space. It is patent from this past research that singularly employing 2D-CNN or 3D-CNN has limitations, for instance, squandered band-related information or deeply intricate method. Additionally, it prevents the methods mentioned above from achieving outstanding accuracy. The principal explanation is that HSI is volumetric data with spectral dimension. Using the 2D-CNN method alone cannot acquire helpful, distinctive feature maps from the spectral interpretations. Likewise, a deep 3D-CNN method is computationally costly. It performs poorly for classes of similar features over several spectral channels when used alone. In addition, the methods take more computational time to analyze and interpret the spectral-spatial data cubes.Therefore, we proposed a 3D-2D convolutional neural network and transfer learning model embedded in ResNeXt-50 with consecutive feature learning blocks based on the challenges mentioned above. Our approach takes the spectral-spatial features of HSI into account for classification. It achieves a brief description of the spectral-spatial data and enhanced computational efficiency as defined:We propose a 3D-2D convolutional neural network and transfer learning model that utilizes 3D convolutions to modeling spectral-spatial information in the early network layers of the model and the 2D convolutions on top to exceptionally deal with semantic abstraction.The network leverage convolutional blocks of the ResNeXt-50 model before the flatten layer to further enhance the performance.We applied regularization techniques to avoid overfitting during fine-tuning. We engaged an optimizer with a prolonged learning rate with a dropout of 0.5/0.055 and early stopping in the training process. Adam is a good choice for the process as opposed to methods such as stochastic gradient descent (SGD).We evaluated our proposed model on five sets of publicly available HSI data. Our proposed model delivers swift spectral-spatial representation, enhances computational efficiency, and validates more understanding of the 3D spectral-spatial hyperspectral imagery classification.The rest of our paper is organized as follows; Section2 gives the related works on HSI classification. Then, Section 3 describes the proposed approach in detail. Section 4 presents extensive experiment; finally, the conclusion is presented in Section 5.


## 2. Related Work

Recently, CNNs have been implemented by a manifold of researchers; for example, Zhang et al. [33, 34] implemented a CNN model for the HSI classification. The work acquired the spatial features through a 2D-CNN approach by utilizing the original HSI image’s first insufficient principal component channels. Using 2D-CNN in HSI comes with various advantages: a principled way to acquire features instantly from the original input images. It has shown tremendous promise in image processing and computer vision, with applications such as object detection [35] and image classification [36]. Nonetheless, the immediate deployment of 2D-CNN to HSI images necessitates the convolution of individual inputs of the 2D networks, in addition to each group of learnable kernels. Frequently, a substantial amount of bands with the spectral dimension of the HSI image requires a vital number of parameters, which may be subject to overfitting and a risen computational cost.Preceding articles acknowledge that 2D-CNN has achieved incredible outcomes in visual data processing areas such as image classification [37], face detection [38], depth estimation [35, 39], and object detection [40]. Nevertheless, using 2D-CNN in the investigation of HSI points to the failure to catch channel-related information. Accordingly, using 2D-CNN entirely has no capacity for extracting valuable features of the spectral dimension. In addition, the 2D-CNNs, when deployed alone, hinder them from achieving more reliable accuracy on HSI.An enhanced spatial dimension of HSIs helps supply multiple low-level features, combining exhaustive spatial information. In contrast, the spectral features present fundamental and distinguishing features to reveal the components of land objects [41]. Hence, the deployment of spectral-spatial information advances and increases HSI classification efficiency. The 3D-CNN [42] model proposed by Ben Hamida et al. focused on exploring different DL techniques for HSI dataset classification. Zhong et al. [43] implemented a 3D deep learning framework for spectral-spatial features classification. To extract the spatial-spectral features undeviatingly from the original HSI image, Mei et al. [44], introduced a 3D CNNs approach that exhibited boosting classification outcomes. Li et al. [45] extended their investigations of 3D-CNN to classify spectral-spatial with the use of 3D input cubes with small spatial dimensions. Their techniques produce thematic classification maps employing an approach that can process original HSIs directly. However, the CNN method drops in precision as the network deepens.Li et al. [46] further explain that HSI imagery combines several adjacent bands or channels with affluence of spectral signatures, hence, the distinguishing of different elements through discrete spectral discrepancies. However, these spectral bands are closely correlated and incorporate considerable redundant information due to a huge volume of the raw spectral bands and the spatial resolution, henceforward, the difficulty in discriminating the land-cover classes [47]. Additionally, the key enigma entails extracting the discriminative features of the HSI data to reduce the set of important bands [48]. In a different outline, the HSI data generally takes a 3D cube form. The 3D convolution in spectral-spatial dimensions frequently contributes towards an effective approach that empowers a concurrent extraction of the detailed features in such images. Studying the information, numerous authors have implemented a 3D-CNN method to purposely extract the deep spectral-spatial [18, 30, 36, 42, 43, 45, 49, 50]. Works by Song et al. [29], Mou et al. [32], Zhong et al. [43], and Paoletti et al. [51] exhibited extensive network residual learning (RL) models to extract additional discriminative characteristics for HSI classification. More advanced investigations on HSI classification point to significant enhancement by fusing spatial features toward classifiers [52]. Although the 3D-CNN architectures are manageable and can deduce the spectral and spatial information from HSI data while accomplishing more reliable accuracy, they are computationally expensive to be uniquely employed in HSI analysis. On the contrary, when deployed alone, it hinders them from achieving more reliable accuracy on HSIs. It is essential to merge the learned spatial features with the spectral features captured by feature extraction methods for reliable HSI classification.Melgani and Bruzzone [53] introduced a support vector machine (SVM) technique with diverse classifiers to evaluate their potentials. Makantasis et al. [19] proposed deep learning that envisions high-level features automatically in a hierarchical order to encode spatial information and pixels’ spectral for classification. They engaged a 3D DL method that facilitated spectral and spatial information and then induced a basis for solving RS data noise. The method subsequently classified the information employing a multilayer perceptron. However, the method only considered spatial features for HSI classification. A multiscale 3D deep CNN (M3D-DCNN) of 5 layers is proposed for similar work [54]. The model concurrently learns 2D multiscale spatial features and 1D spectral features from HSI data in an end-to-end approach. Thus, it jointly extracts both the multiscale spatial feature and the spectral feature. Moreover, the model lacks features aggregation, which affected classification performance.Zhong et al. built a spectral-spatial residual network (SSRN) model that manipulates the 3D raw data cubes for HSI classification [43]. It uses identity mapping to concatenate 3D convolutional layers via residual blocks for backpropagated gradients. Using hybrid spectral CNN (HybridSN), Roy et al. [55] achieved a better classification accuracy. The model combines the corresponding spectral and spatio-spectral data in the 3D and 2D convolution forms, respectively. Although the model achieved high accuracy, it maintains many parameters likened to the SSRN model; simultaneously, it takes a long to train.In this context, our system shares the same skeleton system architecture as Roy et al. [55], except for the convolved 2D input kernels. Instead of a single 2D layer, we leverage five (5) convolutional blocks of the ResNeXt-50 model starting from the layer block with filter 128 before the flatten layer to handle semantic abstraction. We freeze the layers from the 3rd block before training. This practice strongly discriminates the spatial information within different spectral bands without substantial loss of spectral information. The experimental result shows that the approach improves the computational efficiency, classification accuracy, and instantaneous representation of the spectral-spatial information compared to SOTA methods such as SVM [53], 2D-CNN [19], 3D-CNN [42], M3D-CNN [54], SSRN [43], and HybridSN [55] that have deployed the hyperspectral remote sensing images as the experimental datasets.


## 3. Proposed Method

### 3.1. A 3D-2D Convolutional Neural Network and Transfer Learning Model

Figure1 illustrates the general diagram of our proposed method for hyperspectral image classification.Figure 1
General diagram of our proposed method for hyperspectral image classification.The proposed 3D-2D convolutional neural network and transfer learning model (3D-2D-CNNTL) model mimics the design architecture of HybridSN but differs in implementation. It fuses both 3D and 2D-CNN layers to obtain the spectral features encoded in a manifold of bands with spatial information. The 3D-CNN learns an abstract level spectral-spatial representation and the 2D-CNN network for spatial feature learning. We then leverage convolutional blocks of the ResNeXt-50 model before layer flatten. ResNeXt-50 blocks are deep residual networks with cardinality that utilizes the split-transform-merge method. Results are seen in branching paths within a cell to transform the residual block. The output from the ResNeXt-50 block concatenated with the skip connection path resulting in an orthogonal increase in the depth of the residual networks [56]. The ResNeXt-50 block is represented as(1)y=x+∑i=1Cτix,where y is the output, x represents the input of the preceding network layer, C denotes the cardinality, and τi is the arbitrary function that projects x into low-dimensional embedding and transforming it. The proposed model network concatenated with ResNeXt-50 as the base model is shown in Figure 2.Figure 2
Proposed 3D-2D convolutional neural network and transfer learning model architecture.


### 3.2. Hyperspectral Input Image

As shown in equation (2), we took the input image as the spectral-spatial hyperspectral data cube represented by(2)I∈RW×H×N,where I denotes the HSI input image, W denotes the width, while H denotes the height, and N signifies the value of spectral bands. Each spectral-spatial image pixel in I consist of N spectral measures which formulate to a label vector expressed as(3)V¯=v1,v2,…,vC∈R1×1×L,where L in this space represents the land-cover categories.


### 3.3. Dimensionality Reduction

PCA is an unsupervised feature technique for feature extraction used to derive orthogonal features from a dataset and decrease the feature space’s dimensionality. We applied PCA for dimensionality reduction at the firstI, beside the spectral channels, to eliminate spectral redundancy and dataset imbalance. This redundancy is caused by high intraclass variability and interclass similarity due to different land-cover classes represented by the spectral-spatial HSI pixel. To identify the object in its original class, the PCA helps to decrease spectral bands, i.e., from NtoS but conserved W and height H at the exact spatial dimensions, as shown in the equation below:(4)P∈RW×H×N,where P denotes the transformed HSI input after applying PCA. We then divided the spectral-spatial data cubes into small overlapping 3D patches Q∈RS×S×N from P, where S×S represents the width and height of the covering window size. Finally, the central pixel of the class label at the spatial location α,β decides the truth labels. The 3D patches n from S takes expression(5)W−S+1×H−S+1.The 3D patch at the positionα,β, represented by Qα,β, thus represents the width from α−S−1/2toα+S−1/2, height with the entire N spectral bands of PCA decomposed data cubes P. Figure 3 delineates the process of dimensionality reduction.Figure 3
Spectral-spatial hyperspectral image preprocessing through principal component analysis (PCA) for data dimensionality reduction of five datasets.There are four primary steps in PCA as the pseudocode for each computing step is supplied in Algorithm1. The data volume is first relocated to a new location to be recentered around the reference origin region. The mean value of each spectral band is computed and removed during data preprocessing (see step 2 of Algorithm 1). Second, the data volume’s covariance matrix is calculated as the product of the preprocessed data matrix and its transpose (step 3). The related eigenvectors of the covariance matrix are then retrieved (step 4). Each pixel of the original image is projected into a subset of eigenvectors (steps 5 and 6), which produce a reduced dimensionality.We can get a reduced dataset from the original high-dimensional dataset by following these steps, which is the primary goal of the PCA technique. Finally, the explained variance ratio given by a principal component is the balance between the variance of that principal component and the total variance. The explained variance ratio was nearly 75% for the five dataset samples.Algorithm 1: Principal component analysis.
(1)
Input: Hyperspectral Image IRW×H×Nmatrix, R spatial dimension, N bands(2)
S = BandAverageRemoval I(3)
Covariance matrix,V¯=ST⋅S(4)
E = Eigenvectors_EigenvaluesDecomposition V¯, E eigenvectors and eigenvalues computed(5)
Projection Matrix,Qα,β=I⋅E(6)
Q′ = MatrixColumnRemoval Qα,β,p, p new dimensional feature subspace(7)
Output: Reduced Hyperspectral Image Q′RW×H×pmatrix


### 3.4. The Spectral-Spatial Feature Learning

To generate the feature maps of the convolution layer from the spectral-spatial features and capture the spectral information, we applied the 3D kernel over a manifold of adjacent HSI channels in the input layer in our suggested model for the HSI dataset. The 3D convolution network at a spatial pointx,y,z, which denotes the activation value at the jth feature map of the ith network layer of the proposed model, is designated as vi,jx,y,z and produced through the following expression:(6)vi,jx,y,z=ϕbi,j+∑r−1dl−1∑λ=−ηη∑ρ=−γγ∑σ=−δδwi,j,τσ,ρ,λ×vi−1,τx+σ,y+ρ,z+λ,where ϕ represents the activation function, the bias constraint is denoted by bi,j, dl−1 signifies the value of feature map in l−1th network layer, 2γ+1 represents kernel’s width, 2δ+1 is the height of kernel, the depth of the kernel is represented by 2η+1 along the spectral dimension, and wi,j represents the number of weight constraint of ith network layer for the jth feature map.We applied a supervised approach [36] to train the constraints of bias represented by b and the kernel weight represented by w through gradient descent. Eventually, a spectral-spatial feature representation is taken concurrently from the HSI by the 3-D-CNN kernel, whereby the computational expense remains complex. To achieve the convolution of the network, we estimated the summation of products of the two corresponding dot products. These products are the HSI input and the kernel spatial dimensions. Lastly, we include the entire feature maps of the last network layer of the model. The activation function value in 2D convolution at x,y denotes the spatial point of the ith network layer for the jth feature map represented by vi,jx,y and generated using the in-text equation:(7)vi,jx,y=ϕbi,j+∑r−1dl−1∑ρ=−γγ∑σ=−δδwi,jσ,ρ×vi−1,τx+σ,y+ρ,where ϕ in the equation represents the activation function, bi,j denotes bias constraint, dj−1 signifies the value of feature map in l−1th network layer, and wi,j represents the width of the kernel all designed for the ith network layers for the jth feature maps.A 3D convolution is produced via concatenating a 3D kernel with 3D data. Roy et al. [55] employed a 3D kernel over a manifold of adjoining bands and channels in the input layer to obtain the spectral features to generate a feature map layer. We employed similar 3D for the first three layers in our model. Triple 3D convolutions (Conv3D) are applied to preserve the spectral features for the input data. This helps the amount of spectral-spatial (SS) feature maps to increase within the output dimensions simultaneously. We engaged 3D convolutional blocks with filters; 8, 16, and 32 in the first, second, and third convolution layers. The Conv3D and Max-Pooling kernel size is z×z×h, that is, z= kernel spatial size and h= the kernel depth. Conv_layer1 = 8×3×3×7Ζ11=3,Ζ21=3,Ζ31=7, Conv_layer 2 = 16×1×1×1Ζ12=1,Ζ22=1,Ζ32=1, and Conv_layer3 = 32×1×1×1Ζ13=1,Ζ23=1,Ζ33=1. The output layer is then reshaped to take a 2D form, i.e., the 4th and 5th 2D convolution (Conv2D) and max-pooling kernel size of z×z and stride = 2. We leveraged five convolutional blocks of the ResNeXt-50 model starting from the layer block with filter 128 before the flatten layer, where we freeze the layers from the third block before training. This practice actively discriminates the spatial information within distinct spectral channels without losing any important spectral information. The ResNeXt-50 block (bottleneck layer) further learns deep spatial encoded features when transforming from 3D to 2D before the FCs’ layers to significantly condense the input feature maps and accelerate the training speed. Then, the output is downsized (flattened) before assigning it into the FC layers that produce the land-cover class possibilities via a softmax loss layer l0 expressed as(8)l0=−1p∑i=1p∑j=1jrijlogqij,where j represents the number of class labels, p represents the mini-batch size, and qi and ri represent the ith label probability distribution vector and the ground truth (GT) label in the mini-batch, respectively. The average is computed on the sum result from the whole mini-batch pixels.The weights were not significantly changed during the fine-tuning stage, as the ResNeXt-50 model is already good. We employed the Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 0.001 and a weight decay of 1e − 06. Usually, the Adam is appropriate for this instead of the SGD optimizer. Whenever the number of training samples is small, it occasionally triggers overfitting. Hence, we adopted early stopping with dropout regularization techniques to combat overfitting and improve generalization error. We used a dropout of 0.50 for IP, PU, SA, and KSC datasets and 0.55 for BS due to the sampled size. We considered the early stopping criterion to quickly stop the training whenever the performance on the validation set detriments and ensures convergence. Therefore, this pattern is factored during the training process to minimize the computation complexity without detrimental classification accuracy. We run each experiment for 100 epochs after estimating the number of components to 75. The batch sizes were set as 25 × 25 × 30 (IP dataset), 25 × 25 × 15 (PU dataset), 25 × 25 × 15 (SA dataset), 25 × 25 × 23 (BS dataset), and 25 × 25 × 15 (KSC dataset), respectively. The PCA technique was used to select the informative bands (i.e., IP = 30, PU = 15, SA = 15, BS = 23, and KSC = 15). We utilized a spatial window size of 25 × 25, similar to the HybridSN model, for an unbiased comparison. See Table 1 for a summary of all layer types, output map dimensions, and the number of parameters used in our proposed model for each dataset.Table 1
The illustration of the layer-wise summary of our proposed a 3D-2D convolutional neural network and transfer learning model with a window size of 25 × 25. The last layer of our model covers the used dataset, i.e., the Pavia University Scene (PU), Salinas’s Scene (SA), Indian Pines (IP), Botswana (BS), and Kennedy Space Center (KSC) datasets.
Layer (type)No. filtersKernel sizeOutput shapeParametersIPPUSAKSCBSConv_183 × 3 × 725 × 25 × 15 × 85125125125125123D_MaxPooling82 × 2 × 224 × 24 × 14 × 800000Conv_2163 × 3 × 524 × 24 × 14 × 165,7765,7765,7765,7765,7763D_MaxPooling162 × 2 × 223 × 23 × 13 × 1600000Conv-3323 × 3 × 323 × 23 × 13 × 3213,856138,5613,85613,85613,8563D_MaxPooling322 × 2 × 211 × 11 × 6 × 3200000Reshape3211 × 11 × 192/448/192/160000002D-Conv643 × 311 × 11 × 64110,656258,112110,6569222492,2242D-MaxPooling643 × 35 × 5 × 6400000Bottleneck241 × 15 × 5 × 2415601560156015601560Flatten60000000Dense_1256153,856153,856153,856153,856153,856Dropout_125600000Dense_212832,89632,89632,89632,89632,896Dropout_212800000Dense_316/9/16/13/141,1612,0642,0641,6771,806Total trainable parameters320,273468,632321,176219357320,789Dropout0.50.50.50.50.55Learning rate (lr)0.0010.0010.0010.0010.001Epoch100100100100100Weight decay1e − 061e − 061e − 061e − 061e − 06Ncomponents7575757575Window size25 × 2525 × 2525 × 2525 × 2525 × 25To solve the quicker convergence of the model, we adopted the ReLUs’ activation function. It tends to be faster training convergence than other saturating activation functions. The ReLU also enhances the model’s effectiveness to represent complex functions and facilitates optimization, yielding lower training and testing losses and is formulated as(9)fx=max0,x.


### 3.5. Evaluation Indexes

We use three evaluation metrics, overall accuracy (OA), Kappa coefficient (Kappa), and average accuracy (AA), to estimate the model performance. The OA and AA metrics describe the average exactness of class-wise classification. This helps confirm the precise number of samples correctly classified from the test set. The Kappa coefficient is used as a numerical determination metric to reciprocate information. It helps verify a resilient concurrence based on the ground truth and the classification mapping. See equations (10)–(12) for evaluation indexes.


#### 3.5.1. Kappa CoefficientK^

(10)K^=P0−Pc1−Pc,where P0=∑Pii is the summation of the relative frequency in the diagonal of the actual error and Pc=∑Pi+P+j is the relative frequency of random allocation equivalent to the chance of agreement. “i+”and“+j” represents the relative marginal frequencies.


#### 3.5.2. The Overall AccuracyOA

(11)OA=CCT,where CC represents accurately predicted samples in relation to the ground truth. T is all samples of either the ground truth or predicted values.


#### 3.5.3. The Average AccuracyAA

The average accuracy of our model performance is given by(12)AA=1C∑i=1cx,where c is the number of classes and x indicates the percentage of correctly classified pixels in a single class.


## 3.1. A 3D-2D Convolutional Neural Network and Transfer Learning Model

Figure1 illustrates the general diagram of our proposed method for hyperspectral image classification.Figure 1
General diagram of our proposed method for hyperspectral image classification.The proposed 3D-2D convolutional neural network and transfer learning model (3D-2D-CNNTL) model mimics the design architecture of HybridSN but differs in implementation. It fuses both 3D and 2D-CNN layers to obtain the spectral features encoded in a manifold of bands with spatial information. The 3D-CNN learns an abstract level spectral-spatial representation and the 2D-CNN network for spatial feature learning. We then leverage convolutional blocks of the ResNeXt-50 model before layer flatten. ResNeXt-50 blocks are deep residual networks with cardinality that utilizes the split-transform-merge method. Results are seen in branching paths within a cell to transform the residual block. The output from the ResNeXt-50 block concatenated with the skip connection path resulting in an orthogonal increase in the depth of the residual networks [56]. The ResNeXt-50 block is represented as(1)y=x+∑i=1Cτix,where y is the output, x represents the input of the preceding network layer, C denotes the cardinality, and τi is the arbitrary function that projects x into low-dimensional embedding and transforming it. The proposed model network concatenated with ResNeXt-50 as the base model is shown in Figure 2.Figure 2
Proposed 3D-2D convolutional neural network and transfer learning model architecture.


## 3.2. Hyperspectral Input Image

As shown in equation (2), we took the input image as the spectral-spatial hyperspectral data cube represented by(2)I∈RW×H×N,where I denotes the HSI input image, W denotes the width, while H denotes the height, and N signifies the value of spectral bands. Each spectral-spatial image pixel in I consist of N spectral measures which formulate to a label vector expressed as(3)V¯=v1,v2,…,vC∈R1×1×L,where L in this space represents the land-cover categories.


## 3.3. Dimensionality Reduction

PCA is an unsupervised feature technique for feature extraction used to derive orthogonal features from a dataset and decrease the feature space’s dimensionality. We applied PCA for dimensionality reduction at the firstI, beside the spectral channels, to eliminate spectral redundancy and dataset imbalance. This redundancy is caused by high intraclass variability and interclass similarity due to different land-cover classes represented by the spectral-spatial HSI pixel. To identify the object in its original class, the PCA helps to decrease spectral bands, i.e., from NtoS but conserved W and height H at the exact spatial dimensions, as shown in the equation below:(4)P∈RW×H×N,where P denotes the transformed HSI input after applying PCA. We then divided the spectral-spatial data cubes into small overlapping 3D patches Q∈RS×S×N from P, where S×S represents the width and height of the covering window size. Finally, the central pixel of the class label at the spatial location α,β decides the truth labels. The 3D patches n from S takes expression(5)W−S+1×H−S+1.The 3D patch at the positionα,β, represented by Qα,β, thus represents the width from α−S−1/2toα+S−1/2, height with the entire N spectral bands of PCA decomposed data cubes P. Figure 3 delineates the process of dimensionality reduction.Figure 3
Spectral-spatial hyperspectral image preprocessing through principal component analysis (PCA) for data dimensionality reduction of five datasets.There are four primary steps in PCA as the pseudocode for each computing step is supplied in Algorithm1. The data volume is first relocated to a new location to be recentered around the reference origin region. The mean value of each spectral band is computed and removed during data preprocessing (see step 2 of Algorithm 1). Second, the data volume’s covariance matrix is calculated as the product of the preprocessed data matrix and its transpose (step 3). The related eigenvectors of the covariance matrix are then retrieved (step 4). Each pixel of the original image is projected into a subset of eigenvectors (steps 5 and 6), which produce a reduced dimensionality.We can get a reduced dataset from the original high-dimensional dataset by following these steps, which is the primary goal of the PCA technique. Finally, the explained variance ratio given by a principal component is the balance between the variance of that principal component and the total variance. The explained variance ratio was nearly 75% for the five dataset samples.Algorithm 1: Principal component analysis.
(1)
Input: Hyperspectral Image IRW×H×Nmatrix, R spatial dimension, N bands(2)
S = BandAverageRemoval I(3)
Covariance matrix,V¯=ST⋅S(4)
E = Eigenvectors_EigenvaluesDecomposition V¯, E eigenvectors and eigenvalues computed(5)
Projection Matrix,Qα,β=I⋅E(6)
Q′ = MatrixColumnRemoval Qα,β,p, p new dimensional feature subspace(7)
Output: Reduced Hyperspectral Image Q′RW×H×pmatrix


## 3.4. The Spectral-Spatial Feature Learning

To generate the feature maps of the convolution layer from the spectral-spatial features and capture the spectral information, we applied the 3D kernel over a manifold of adjacent HSI channels in the input layer in our suggested model for the HSI dataset. The 3D convolution network at a spatial pointx,y,z, which denotes the activation value at the jth feature map of the ith network layer of the proposed model, is designated as vi,jx,y,z and produced through the following expression:(6)vi,jx,y,z=ϕbi,j+∑r−1dl−1∑λ=−ηη∑ρ=−γγ∑σ=−δδwi,j,τσ,ρ,λ×vi−1,τx+σ,y+ρ,z+λ,where ϕ represents the activation function, the bias constraint is denoted by bi,j, dl−1 signifies the value of feature map in l−1th network layer, 2γ+1 represents kernel’s width, 2δ+1 is the height of kernel, the depth of the kernel is represented by 2η+1 along the spectral dimension, and wi,j represents the number of weight constraint of ith network layer for the jth feature map.We applied a supervised approach [36] to train the constraints of bias represented by b and the kernel weight represented by w through gradient descent. Eventually, a spectral-spatial feature representation is taken concurrently from the HSI by the 3-D-CNN kernel, whereby the computational expense remains complex. To achieve the convolution of the network, we estimated the summation of products of the two corresponding dot products. These products are the HSI input and the kernel spatial dimensions. Lastly, we include the entire feature maps of the last network layer of the model. The activation function value in 2D convolution at x,y denotes the spatial point of the ith network layer for the jth feature map represented by vi,jx,y and generated using the in-text equation:(7)vi,jx,y=ϕbi,j+∑r−1dl−1∑ρ=−γγ∑σ=−δδwi,jσ,ρ×vi−1,τx+σ,y+ρ,where ϕ in the equation represents the activation function, bi,j denotes bias constraint, dj−1 signifies the value of feature map in l−1th network layer, and wi,j represents the width of the kernel all designed for the ith network layers for the jth feature maps.A 3D convolution is produced via concatenating a 3D kernel with 3D data. Roy et al. [55] employed a 3D kernel over a manifold of adjoining bands and channels in the input layer to obtain the spectral features to generate a feature map layer. We employed similar 3D for the first three layers in our model. Triple 3D convolutions (Conv3D) are applied to preserve the spectral features for the input data. This helps the amount of spectral-spatial (SS) feature maps to increase within the output dimensions simultaneously. We engaged 3D convolutional blocks with filters; 8, 16, and 32 in the first, second, and third convolution layers. The Conv3D and Max-Pooling kernel size is z×z×h, that is, z= kernel spatial size and h= the kernel depth. Conv_layer1 = 8×3×3×7Ζ11=3,Ζ21=3,Ζ31=7, Conv_layer 2 = 16×1×1×1Ζ12=1,Ζ22=1,Ζ32=1, and Conv_layer3 = 32×1×1×1Ζ13=1,Ζ23=1,Ζ33=1. The output layer is then reshaped to take a 2D form, i.e., the 4th and 5th 2D convolution (Conv2D) and max-pooling kernel size of z×z and stride = 2. We leveraged five convolutional blocks of the ResNeXt-50 model starting from the layer block with filter 128 before the flatten layer, where we freeze the layers from the third block before training. This practice actively discriminates the spatial information within distinct spectral channels without losing any important spectral information. The ResNeXt-50 block (bottleneck layer) further learns deep spatial encoded features when transforming from 3D to 2D before the FCs’ layers to significantly condense the input feature maps and accelerate the training speed. Then, the output is downsized (flattened) before assigning it into the FC layers that produce the land-cover class possibilities via a softmax loss layer l0 expressed as(8)l0=−1p∑i=1p∑j=1jrijlogqij,where j represents the number of class labels, p represents the mini-batch size, and qi and ri represent the ith label probability distribution vector and the ground truth (GT) label in the mini-batch, respectively. The average is computed on the sum result from the whole mini-batch pixels.The weights were not significantly changed during the fine-tuning stage, as the ResNeXt-50 model is already good. We employed the Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 0.001 and a weight decay of 1e − 06. Usually, the Adam is appropriate for this instead of the SGD optimizer. Whenever the number of training samples is small, it occasionally triggers overfitting. Hence, we adopted early stopping with dropout regularization techniques to combat overfitting and improve generalization error. We used a dropout of 0.50 for IP, PU, SA, and KSC datasets and 0.55 for BS due to the sampled size. We considered the early stopping criterion to quickly stop the training whenever the performance on the validation set detriments and ensures convergence. Therefore, this pattern is factored during the training process to minimize the computation complexity without detrimental classification accuracy. We run each experiment for 100 epochs after estimating the number of components to 75. The batch sizes were set as 25 × 25 × 30 (IP dataset), 25 × 25 × 15 (PU dataset), 25 × 25 × 15 (SA dataset), 25 × 25 × 23 (BS dataset), and 25 × 25 × 15 (KSC dataset), respectively. The PCA technique was used to select the informative bands (i.e., IP = 30, PU = 15, SA = 15, BS = 23, and KSC = 15). We utilized a spatial window size of 25 × 25, similar to the HybridSN model, for an unbiased comparison. See Table 1 for a summary of all layer types, output map dimensions, and the number of parameters used in our proposed model for each dataset.Table 1
The illustration of the layer-wise summary of our proposed a 3D-2D convolutional neural network and transfer learning model with a window size of 25 × 25. The last layer of our model covers the used dataset, i.e., the Pavia University Scene (PU), Salinas’s Scene (SA), Indian Pines (IP), Botswana (BS), and Kennedy Space Center (KSC) datasets.
Layer (type)No. filtersKernel sizeOutput shapeParametersIPPUSAKSCBSConv_183 × 3 × 725 × 25 × 15 × 85125125125125123D_MaxPooling82 × 2 × 224 × 24 × 14 × 800000Conv_2163 × 3 × 524 × 24 × 14 × 165,7765,7765,7765,7765,7763D_MaxPooling162 × 2 × 223 × 23 × 13 × 1600000Conv-3323 × 3 × 323 × 23 × 13 × 3213,856138,5613,85613,85613,8563D_MaxPooling322 × 2 × 211 × 11 × 6 × 3200000Reshape3211 × 11 × 192/448/192/160000002D-Conv643 × 311 × 11 × 64110,656258,112110,6569222492,2242D-MaxPooling643 × 35 × 5 × 6400000Bottleneck241 × 15 × 5 × 2415601560156015601560Flatten60000000Dense_1256153,856153,856153,856153,856153,856Dropout_125600000Dense_212832,89632,89632,89632,89632,896Dropout_212800000Dense_316/9/16/13/141,1612,0642,0641,6771,806Total trainable parameters320,273468,632321,176219357320,789Dropout0.50.50.50.50.55Learning rate (lr)0.0010.0010.0010.0010.001Epoch100100100100100Weight decay1e − 061e − 061e − 061e − 061e − 06Ncomponents7575757575Window size25 × 2525 × 2525 × 2525 × 2525 × 25To solve the quicker convergence of the model, we adopted the ReLUs’ activation function. It tends to be faster training convergence than other saturating activation functions. The ReLU also enhances the model’s effectiveness to represent complex functions and facilitates optimization, yielding lower training and testing losses and is formulated as(9)fx=max0,x.


## 3.5. Evaluation Indexes

We use three evaluation metrics, overall accuracy (OA), Kappa coefficient (Kappa), and average accuracy (AA), to estimate the model performance. The OA and AA metrics describe the average exactness of class-wise classification. This helps confirm the precise number of samples correctly classified from the test set. The Kappa coefficient is used as a numerical determination metric to reciprocate information. It helps verify a resilient concurrence based on the ground truth and the classification mapping. See equations (10)–(12) for evaluation indexes.


### 3.5.1. Kappa CoefficientK^

(10)K^=P0−Pc1−Pc,where P0=∑Pii is the summation of the relative frequency in the diagonal of the actual error and Pc=∑Pi+P+j is the relative frequency of random allocation equivalent to the chance of agreement. “i+”and“+j” represents the relative marginal frequencies.


### 3.5.2. The Overall AccuracyOA

(11)OA=CCT,where CC represents accurately predicted samples in relation to the ground truth. T is all samples of either the ground truth or predicted values.


### 3.5.3. The Average AccuracyAA

The average accuracy of our model performance is given by(12)AA=1C∑i=1cx,where c is the number of classes and x indicates the percentage of correctly classified pixels in a single class.


## 3.5.1. Kappa CoefficientK^

(10)K^=P0−Pc1−Pc,where P0=∑Pii is the summation of the relative frequency in the diagonal of the actual error and Pc=∑Pi+P+j is the relative frequency of random allocation equivalent to the chance of agreement. “i+”and“+j” represents the relative marginal frequencies.


## 3.5.2. The Overall AccuracyOA

(11)OA=CCT,where CC represents accurately predicted samples in relation to the ground truth. T is all samples of either the ground truth or predicted values.


## 3.5.3. The Average AccuracyAA

The average accuracy of our model performance is given by(12)AA=1C∑i=1cx,where c is the number of classes and x indicates the percentage of correctly classified pixels in a single class.


## 4. Experimental and Result Analysis

### 4.1. Data Preprocessing

We processed different publicly available remote sensing datasets [57] to determine the performance of our proposed model. The dataset includes Indian Pines (IP), Pavia University Scene (PU), Salinas Scene (SA), Kennedy Space Center (KSC), and Botswana (BS). Table 2 summarized the description of each dataset used.Table 2
Summary of hyperspectral image datasets used in our experimentation.
Dataset namePublication yearModeData collection locationPixelsSpatial dimension (pixels)Spectral bandsWavelength range (nm)LabelsClassesSpatial resolution (m)IP1992NASA AVIRISNorth Western Indiana21025145 × 145220400–2500102491620PU2001ROSIS-03 sensorNorthern, Italy991040610 × 610115430–86050,23291.3SA1998NASA AVIRISSalinas Valley, California111104512 × 217224360–250054129163.7KSC1996NASA AVIRISFlorida314368512 × 614224400–250052111318BS2001–2004NASA EO-1Okavango Delta, Botswana3778561496 × 256242400–250032481430We split the labeled samples randomly into 30% and 10% training set size and 70% and 90% as a test to conduct our experiments, ensuring the inclusion of all classes. Also, we conducted statistical normalization of all the data to zeros and ones-meanμ=0 and unit as the variance σ=1. To measure the volatility of the model, we expressed the classification accuracies using mean ± standard deviation-based statistics.We carried a set of experiments to present the effectiveness and superiority of our model. We compared our results with the SOTA, methods such as SVM [53], 2D-CNN [19], 3D-CNN [42], M3D-CNN [54], SSRN [43], and HybridSN [55]. The model obtained a very satisfying performance classification accuracy as compared to the cited methods. In our first experiment, we used 30% of the training samples to determine the best parameters of our model. The results outlined in Tables 3–5 highlight the best classification accuracy for individual classes using categorical_crossentropy as a loss function.Table 3
Classification and analysis result of per-class accuracy on the Indian Pines (IP) Scene.
#Class labelsTrain/testSVM2D-CNN3D-CNNM3D-CNNSSRNHybridSNProposedC1Alfalfa14/3282.27579.2397.0397.8299.38100C2Corn-notill428/100073.8281.488.697.999.1799.5899.8C3Corn-mintill249/58182.1587.685.8192.4199.5399.6699.31C4Corn71/16677.1262.0490.5393.2597.7999.88100C5Grass-pasture145/33873.6692.396.119599.2499.53100C6Grass-trees219/51193.499.2198.4399.7499.5199.96100C7Grass-pasture-mowed8/2096.217592.3610098.799100C8Hay-windrowed143/33585.7210098.5199.9999.85100100C9Oats6/1497.3864.2888.996.6198.510099.86C10Soybean-notill292/68071.0182.7987.7296.3298.7499.5699.71C11Soybean-mintill736/171976.591.2791.4297.1399.399.8499.94C12Soybean-clean178/41583.982.8990.0497.1698.4399.5299.76C13Wheat62/14383.5699.39999.610099.86100C14Woods379/88698.6398.8797.9598.4299.31100100C15Buildings-grass-trees-drives116/27094.2186.2982.5783.3199.299.85100C16Stone-steel-towers28/6569.6310098.5110097.8298.46100Table 4
Classification and analysis result of per-class accuracy on Pavia University Scene (PU) dataset.
#Class labelsTrain/testSVM2D-CNN3D-CNNM3D-CNSSRNHybridSNProposedC1Asphalt1989/464294.7298.5198.498.31100100100C2Meadows5594/1305597.1599.5496.9196.199.87100100C3Gravel630/146982.7384.6297.0596.34100100100C4Trees919/214596.8298.0498.8498.8210099.8499.86C5Painted metal sheets403/94299.7110010099.97100100100C6Bare soil1509/352090.4897.199.3299.83100100100C7Bitumen399/93187.7395.0598.9299.66100100100C8Self-blocking bricks1105/257788.2996.3998.3399.2399.3499.98100C9Shadows284/66399.999.6999.999.9210099.999.55Table 5
Classification and analysis result of per-class accuracy on Salinas’s Scene (SA) dataset.
#ClassesTrain/testSVM2D-CNN3D-CNNM3D-CNNSSRNHybridSNProposedC1Brocoli_green_weeds_1603/140699.610098.4197.5100100100C2Brocoli_green_weeds_21118/260899.8299.96100100100100100C3Fallow593/138399.2699.6399.2399.43100100100C4Fallow_rough_plow418/97699.499.2899.999.5199.89100100C5Fallow_smooth803/187599.4299.299.4399.72100100100C6Stubble1188/277110010099.5599.23100100100C7Celery1074/250599.8310099.7299.45100100100C8Grapes_untrained3381/789085.2593.6289.7592.63100100100C9Soil_vinyard_develop1861/434299.7110099.8199.7100100100C10Corn_senesced_green_weeds983/229597.0398.8298.3697.3199.91100100C11Lettuce_romaine_4wk320/74898.2499.7398.1298.05100100100C12Lettuce_romaine_5wk578/134999.4610098.9698.5100100100C13Lettuce_romaine_6wk275/64198.7710098.9398.7100100100C14Lettuce_romaine_7wk321/74997.399.8698.698.42100100100C15Vinyard_untrained2180/508872.7191.5279.3187.1899.96100100C16Vinyard_vertical_trellis542/126599.4199.9294.5191.11100100100


## 4.1. Data Preprocessing

We processed different publicly available remote sensing datasets [57] to determine the performance of our proposed model. The dataset includes Indian Pines (IP), Pavia University Scene (PU), Salinas Scene (SA), Kennedy Space Center (KSC), and Botswana (BS). Table 2 summarized the description of each dataset used.Table 2
Summary of hyperspectral image datasets used in our experimentation.
Dataset namePublication yearModeData collection locationPixelsSpatial dimension (pixels)Spectral bandsWavelength range (nm)LabelsClassesSpatial resolution (m)IP1992NASA AVIRISNorth Western Indiana21025145 × 145220400–2500102491620PU2001ROSIS-03 sensorNorthern, Italy991040610 × 610115430–86050,23291.3SA1998NASA AVIRISSalinas Valley, California111104512 × 217224360–250054129163.7KSC1996NASA AVIRISFlorida314368512 × 614224400–250052111318BS2001–2004NASA EO-1Okavango Delta, Botswana3778561496 × 256242400–250032481430We split the labeled samples randomly into 30% and 10% training set size and 70% and 90% as a test to conduct our experiments, ensuring the inclusion of all classes. Also, we conducted statistical normalization of all the data to zeros and ones-meanμ=0 and unit as the variance σ=1. To measure the volatility of the model, we expressed the classification accuracies using mean ± standard deviation-based statistics.We carried a set of experiments to present the effectiveness and superiority of our model. We compared our results with the SOTA, methods such as SVM [53], 2D-CNN [19], 3D-CNN [42], M3D-CNN [54], SSRN [43], and HybridSN [55]. The model obtained a very satisfying performance classification accuracy as compared to the cited methods. In our first experiment, we used 30% of the training samples to determine the best parameters of our model. The results outlined in Tables 3–5 highlight the best classification accuracy for individual classes using categorical_crossentropy as a loss function.Table 3
Classification and analysis result of per-class accuracy on the Indian Pines (IP) Scene.
#Class labelsTrain/testSVM2D-CNN3D-CNNM3D-CNNSSRNHybridSNProposedC1Alfalfa14/3282.27579.2397.0397.8299.38100C2Corn-notill428/100073.8281.488.697.999.1799.5899.8C3Corn-mintill249/58182.1587.685.8192.4199.5399.6699.31C4Corn71/16677.1262.0490.5393.2597.7999.88100C5Grass-pasture145/33873.6692.396.119599.2499.53100C6Grass-trees219/51193.499.2198.4399.7499.5199.96100C7Grass-pasture-mowed8/2096.217592.3610098.799100C8Hay-windrowed143/33585.7210098.5199.9999.85100100C9Oats6/1497.3864.2888.996.6198.510099.86C10Soybean-notill292/68071.0182.7987.7296.3298.7499.5699.71C11Soybean-mintill736/171976.591.2791.4297.1399.399.8499.94C12Soybean-clean178/41583.982.8990.0497.1698.4399.5299.76C13Wheat62/14383.5699.39999.610099.86100C14Woods379/88698.6398.8797.9598.4299.31100100C15Buildings-grass-trees-drives116/27094.2186.2982.5783.3199.299.85100C16Stone-steel-towers28/6569.6310098.5110097.8298.46100Table 4
Classification and analysis result of per-class accuracy on Pavia University Scene (PU) dataset.
#Class labelsTrain/testSVM2D-CNN3D-CNNM3D-CNSSRNHybridSNProposedC1Asphalt1989/464294.7298.5198.498.31100100100C2Meadows5594/1305597.1599.5496.9196.199.87100100C3Gravel630/146982.7384.6297.0596.34100100100C4Trees919/214596.8298.0498.8498.8210099.8499.86C5Painted metal sheets403/94299.7110010099.97100100100C6Bare soil1509/352090.4897.199.3299.83100100100C7Bitumen399/93187.7395.0598.9299.66100100100C8Self-blocking bricks1105/257788.2996.3998.3399.2399.3499.98100C9Shadows284/66399.999.6999.999.9210099.999.55Table 5
Classification and analysis result of per-class accuracy on Salinas’s Scene (SA) dataset.
#ClassesTrain/testSVM2D-CNN3D-CNNM3D-CNNSSRNHybridSNProposedC1Brocoli_green_weeds_1603/140699.610098.4197.5100100100C2Brocoli_green_weeds_21118/260899.8299.96100100100100100C3Fallow593/138399.2699.6399.2399.43100100100C4Fallow_rough_plow418/97699.499.2899.999.5199.89100100C5Fallow_smooth803/187599.4299.299.4399.72100100100C6Stubble1188/277110010099.5599.23100100100C7Celery1074/250599.8310099.7299.45100100100C8Grapes_untrained3381/789085.2593.6289.7592.63100100100C9Soil_vinyard_develop1861/434299.7110099.8199.7100100100C10Corn_senesced_green_weeds983/229597.0398.8298.3697.3199.91100100C11Lettuce_romaine_4wk320/74898.2499.7398.1298.05100100100C12Lettuce_romaine_5wk578/134999.4610098.9698.5100100100C13Lettuce_romaine_6wk275/64198.7710098.9398.7100100100C14Lettuce_romaine_7wk321/74997.399.8698.698.42100100100C15Vinyard_untrained2180/508872.7191.5279.3187.1899.96100100C16Vinyard_vertical_trellis542/126599.4199.9294.5191.11100100100


## 5. Results and Discussion

### 5.1. Per-Class Accuracy on the Indian Pines (IP) Dataset

As we can see from Table3, our proposed model’s performance gives the highest score in 10 out of 16 classes on the IP dataset comparing to the methods listed. Figure 4(a) illustrates the false-color map, Figure 4(b) the reference ground truth map, and Figures 4(c)–4(i) are classification maps for SVM, 2D-CNN, 3D-CNN, M3D-CNN, SSRN, HybridSN, and our proposed model, respectively, on the IP dataset. Our proposed model’s quality of the classification map is relatively better than the listed SOTA methods, with a little higher percentage superior to SSRN and HybridSN methods. Our model has a smooth and accurate classification compared to other SOTA models. See red “+” on the class labels such as alfalfa, corn-no till, corn, grass-pasture, grass-trees, grass-pasture-mowed, soybean-min till, soybean-clean, wheat, buildings-grass-trees-drives, and stone-steel-towers. Figure 5 shows our proposed model’s accuracy and loss convergence with 100 epochs on a 30% train set of the IP dataset.Figure 4
The Indian Pines (IP) hyperspectral data, (a) is the false-color composite, (b) the reference ground truth (GT) map, and (c)–(i) are the classification maps for SVM, 2D-CNN, 3D-CNN, M3D-CNN, SSRN, HybridSN, and our proposed model, respectively. We indicate the classes that were not classified correctly with “+.”
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)Figure 5
The model accuracy and loss convergence on 30% of the train set on the Indian Pines (IP) dataset.
(a)(b)


### 5.2. Per-Class Accuracy on Pavia University Scene (PU) Dataset

Table4 presents the classification results for the PU dataset. In terms of class accuracy, the class “Shadows” happens to be the most challenging to be correctly classified. Our model still exhibits the best accuracy for this class.Figure6(a) portrays the false-color map, Figure 6(b) the reference ground truth map, and Figures 6(c)–6(i) are classification maps for the PU dataset employing SVM, 2D-CNN, 3D-CNN, M3D-CNN, SSRN, HybridSN, and our proposed model, respectively. Although the quality of the classification map of SSRN, HybridSN is better, and our model comparatively has a small percentage increment superior to SSRN and HybridSN methods. Our model has a precise and accurate classification compared to other methods with red “+” on the trees, bare soil, and self-blocking bricks class labels. Also, see Figure 7 for the accuracy and loss convergence of our proposed model for 100 epochs on the PU dataset, demonstrating computational effectiveness with significant convergence at approximately 30 epochs.Figure 6
The Pavia University (PU) hyperspectral data, (a) is the false-color composite, (b) the reference ground truth (GT) map, and (c)–(i) the comparison classification maps for SVM, 2D-CNN, 3D-CNN, M3D-CNN, SSRN, HybridSN, and our proposed model, respectively. The classes that were not classified correctly are indicated with “+.”
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)Figure 7
The model accuracy and loss convergence on 30% of the train set on the Pavia University (PU) dataset.
(a)(b)


### 5.3. Per-Class Accuracy on the Salinas Scene (SA) Dataset

The classification accuracy for the SA dataset is shown in Table5. We trained the model by adopting the Adam optimizer and maintaining a learning rate of 0.001 and 0.50 dropout. It outperforms all other methods, and it has the same performance as HybridSN, however, better in computational efficiency.Figure8(a) portrays the false-color map, Figure 8(b) the reference ground truth map, and Figures 8(c)–8(i) are classification maps for the SA dataset using SVM, 2D-CNN, 3D-CNN, M3D-CNN, SSRN, HybridSN, and our proposed model, respectively. The quality of the classification map is still comparatively better with our model, with a significant percentage surpassing the SSRN and HybridSN models. Also, our model has a distinct and correct classification with no ambiguity in the class label. Other SOTA methods with red “+” on the class labels depict misclassification. These labels are Fallow_rough_plow, Corn_senesced_green_weeds, and Vinyard_untrained. Figure 9 gives the accuracy and loss convergence of the train set on the SA dataset with 100 epochs of our proposed model. The model converges at approximately 40 epochs, confirming that our model delivers high computation efficiency using 30% of the train set.Figure 8
The Salinas Scene (SA) hyperspectral data, (a) is the false-color composite (b) the reference ground truth (GT) map, and (c)–(i) are the comparison classification maps for SVM, 2D-CNN, 3D-CNN, M3D-CNN, SSRN, HybridSN, and our proposed model, respectively. The classes that were not classified correctly are indicated with the red “+” symbol.
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)Figure 9
The model accuracy and loss convergence on 30% of the train set on the Salinas Scene (SA) dataset.
(a)(b)With 30% train data, we can conclude that our model outperformed other SOTA models. Notably, we compared our model with the HybridSN [46] method using 30% of the available labeled samples in the KSC and BS datasets as the training set. Table 6 records the result of per-class classification accuracy for the BS dataset. Several works from the literature have not published any results on the BS dataset. However, running the HybridSN [46] model on the BS dataset for comparison confirms that our model performs better on the BS dataset. The BS dataset requires further study on the application of HSI models as it is characterized by low spatial resolution multispectral satellite images. Table 7 shows the per-class accuracy achieved on 30% of the training set on the KSC dataset. The bold points emphasize the best of our model compared to the HybridSN model.Table 6
Classification and analysis result of per-class accuracy on the Botswana (BS) dataset.
#Class labelsHybridSNProposedC1Water10099.94C2Hippo grass100100C3Floodplain grasses 1100100C4Floodplain grasses 2100100C5Reeds 194.68100C6Riparian99.4799.47C7Firescar 2100100C8Island interior10099.3C9Acacia woodlands100100C10Acacia shrublands100100C11Acacia grasslands100100C12Short mopane100100C13Mixed mopane100100C14Exposed soils96.97100OA99.43 ± 0.399.82 ± 0.4Kappa99.38 ± 0.199.81 ± 0.4AA99.36 ± 0.699.84 ± 0.1Table 7
Classification and analysis result of per-class accuracy on the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) dataset.
#Class labelHybridSNProposed1Scurb96.9397.082Willow-swamp82.1974.433Cabbage-palm-hammock86.5291.744Cabbage-palm/oak-hammock6374.455Slash-pine95.171006Oak/broadleaf-hammock83.598.067Hardwood-swamp89.3688.38Graminoid-marsh91.2490.469Spartina-marsh64.3264.5310Cattail-marsh74.1895.0511Salt-marsh10010012Mud-flats98.0110013Water100100OA88.791.71Kappa87.490.76AA86.4990.32As shown in Figure10, our model’s training accuracy and loss convergence after 100 epochs engaging 30% of the BS data as a training set. The model converges at almost 50 epochs, verifying quick feature learning of our model.Figure 10
The model accuracy and loss convergence on 30% of the train set on the BS dataset.
(a)(b)Table8 presents the overall accuracy performance regarding OA, Kappa, and AA for classic classifiers and deep neural network models. Our model achieves competing accuracy across the three datasets (IP, PU, and SA), maintaining a minimum standard deviation across all the experiments consecutively. This is due to a sequential representation of spectral-spatial 3D-CNN and a spatial 2D-CNN, succeeded by ResNeXt-50 for feature extraction.Table 8
The classiﬁcation accuracies (in percentages) on the IP, PU, and SA on our model plus the state-of-the-art methods by a 30% training dataset.
MethodsDatasetsIPPUSAOAKappaAAOAKappaAAOAKappaAASVM85.30 ± 2.883.10 ± 3.279.03 ± 2.794.34 ± 0.292.50 ± 0.792.98 ± 0.492.95 ± 0.392.11 ± 0.294.60 ± 2.32D-CNN89.48 ± 0.287.96 ± 0.586.14 ± 0.897.86 ± 0.297.16 ± 0.596.55 ± 0.097.38 ± 0.097.08 ± 0.198.84 ± 0.13D-CNN91.10 ± 0.489.98 ± 0.591.58 ± 0.296.51 ± 0.295.51 ± 0.297.57 ± 1.393.96 ± 0.293.32 ± 0.597.01 ± 0.6M3D-CNN95.32 ± 0.399.07 ± 0.398.93 ± 0.695.76 ± 0.294.50 ± 0.295.08 ± 1.294.79 ± 0.394.20 ± 0.296.25 ± 0.6SSRN99.19 ± 0.399.07 ± 0.398.93 ± 0.699.90 ± 0.099.87 ± 0.099.91 ± 0.099.98 ± 0.199.97 ± 0.199.97 ± 0.0HybridSN99.75 ± 0.199.71 ± 0.199.63 ± 0.299.98 ± 0.099.98 ± 0.099.97 ± 0.0100 ± 0.0100 ± 0.0100 ± 0.0Proposed99.85 ± 0.699.83 ± 0.299.76 ± 0.299.98 ± 0.999.98 ± 0.499.97 ± 0.4100 ± 0.0100 ± 0.0100 ± 0.0From Table8, our model outperforms SVM in terms of OA, Kappa, and AA with 14.55, 16.73, and 20.73 percentage points, respectively, on the IP dataset. Additionally, it yielded better classification results than the 2D-CNN, 3D-CNN, M3D-CNN, SSRN, and HybridSN with an OA, Kappa, and AA accuracies of 99.85%, 99.83%, and 99.76%, respectively. Figures 11(a)–11(c) sequentially represent an absolute confusion matrix highlighting the proposed model’s performance on 30% training samples of the IP, UP, and SA datasets. We recognize that relatively great diagonal values with different colors are situated across the central diagonal of the entire matrices. This signifies that our model significantly decreases the misclassifications of class labels, with many of the classes precisely predicted, producing a more related map regarding the ground truth.Figure 11
The confusion matrices of the (a) Indian Pines (IP), (b) Pavia University (PU), and (c) Salinas Scene (SA) hyperspectral data for the 30% train set.
(a)(b)(c)Table9 demonstrates the results of our proposed model with various SOTA methods on IP, PU, and SA with 10% of the training set. Our model achieves higher classification accuracy in all considered HSI scenes. The overall accuracy (OA), respectively, mounted to 98.78%, 99.80%, and 99.99% on IP, PU, and SA datasets. Hence, proving our proposed model is somewhat better to the SOTA methods in nearly all states, while maintaining the least standard deviation.Table 9
The classiﬁcation accuracies (in percentages) on the IP, PU, and SA on our model plus the modern classification methods by a 10% training dataset.
MethodsIPPUSAOAKappaAAOAKappaAAOAKappaAA2D-CNN80.2778.2668.3296.6395.5394.8496.3495.9394.363D-CNN82.6279.2576.5196.3494.997.038593.289.63M3D-CNN81.3981.275.2295.9593.497.5294.293.6196.66SSRN98.4598.2386.1999.6299.599.4999.6499.699.76HybridSN98.3998.1698.0199.7299.6499.299.9899.9899.98Proposed98.7898.6098.4999.8099.7399.6799.9999.9999.99Figures12–14 emphasizes the training accuracy and loss for our proposed model, and Figure 15 illustrates the confusion matrix of the three datasets, i.e., IP, PU, and SA.Figure 12
The model accuracy and loss convergence for the Indian Pines (IP) dataset with a 10% train data.
(a)(b)Figure 13
The model accuracy and loss convergence for the Pavia University (PU) dataset with a 10% train data.
(a)(b)Figure 14
The model accuracy and loss convergence for the Salinas Scene (SA) dataset with a 10% train data.
(a)(b)Figure 15
The confusion matrices of the (a) Indian Pines (IP), (b) Pavia University (PU), and (c) Salinas Scene (SA) hyperspectral data for the 10% train set.
(a)(b)(c)Table10 presents the execution time on the IP, PU, and SA datasets with spectral-spatial SOTA methods. The execution time is based on the GPU computational training time (m) and testing time (s). We can conclude that our model outperforms the other spectral-spatial models in training and test time. This is due to early stopping, accuracy monitoring, and adopted regularization technique during the training process that helps minimize computational complexity, while steadily maintaining classification performance.Table 10
Training time (m) and testing (s) on three HSI datasets (IP, PU, and SA).
Data3D-CNNHybridSNProposedTrain (m)Test (s)Train (m)Test (s)Train (m)Test (s)IP15.24.314.14.89.93.2PU58.010.620.36.620.25.3SA7415.225.59.0244.9We ran this on MacBook Pro (Retina, macOS Catalina, and processor: 2.3 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7, 8 GB 1600 MHz DDR3-NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M (Memory), and Software: Python and Google Colaboratory ltd., with 1 GPU acceleration mode and 25.7 GB RAM.


## 5.1. Per-Class Accuracy on the Indian Pines (IP) Dataset

As we can see from Table3, our proposed model’s performance gives the highest score in 10 out of 16 classes on the IP dataset comparing to the methods listed. Figure 4(a) illustrates the false-color map, Figure 4(b) the reference ground truth map, and Figures 4(c)–4(i) are classification maps for SVM, 2D-CNN, 3D-CNN, M3D-CNN, SSRN, HybridSN, and our proposed model, respectively, on the IP dataset. Our proposed model’s quality of the classification map is relatively better than the listed SOTA methods, with a little higher percentage superior to SSRN and HybridSN methods. Our model has a smooth and accurate classification compared to other SOTA models. See red “+” on the class labels such as alfalfa, corn-no till, corn, grass-pasture, grass-trees, grass-pasture-mowed, soybean-min till, soybean-clean, wheat, buildings-grass-trees-drives, and stone-steel-towers. Figure 5 shows our proposed model’s accuracy and loss convergence with 100 epochs on a 30% train set of the IP dataset.Figure 4
The Indian Pines (IP) hyperspectral data, (a) is the false-color composite, (b) the reference ground truth (GT) map, and (c)–(i) are the classification maps for SVM, 2D-CNN, 3D-CNN, M3D-CNN, SSRN, HybridSN, and our proposed model, respectively. We indicate the classes that were not classified correctly with “+.”
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)Figure 5
The model accuracy and loss convergence on 30% of the train set on the Indian Pines (IP) dataset.
(a)(b)


## 5.2. Per-Class Accuracy on Pavia University Scene (PU) Dataset

Table4 presents the classification results for the PU dataset. In terms of class accuracy, the class “Shadows” happens to be the most challenging to be correctly classified. Our model still exhibits the best accuracy for this class.Figure6(a) portrays the false-color map, Figure 6(b) the reference ground truth map, and Figures 6(c)–6(i) are classification maps for the PU dataset employing SVM, 2D-CNN, 3D-CNN, M3D-CNN, SSRN, HybridSN, and our proposed model, respectively. Although the quality of the classification map of SSRN, HybridSN is better, and our model comparatively has a small percentage increment superior to SSRN and HybridSN methods. Our model has a precise and accurate classification compared to other methods with red “+” on the trees, bare soil, and self-blocking bricks class labels. Also, see Figure 7 for the accuracy and loss convergence of our proposed model for 100 epochs on the PU dataset, demonstrating computational effectiveness with significant convergence at approximately 30 epochs.Figure 6
The Pavia University (PU) hyperspectral data, (a) is the false-color composite, (b) the reference ground truth (GT) map, and (c)–(i) the comparison classification maps for SVM, 2D-CNN, 3D-CNN, M3D-CNN, SSRN, HybridSN, and our proposed model, respectively. The classes that were not classified correctly are indicated with “+.”
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)Figure 7
The model accuracy and loss convergence on 30% of the train set on the Pavia University (PU) dataset.
(a)(b)


## 5.3. Per-Class Accuracy on the Salinas Scene (SA) Dataset

The classification accuracy for the SA dataset is shown in Table5. We trained the model by adopting the Adam optimizer and maintaining a learning rate of 0.001 and 0.50 dropout. It outperforms all other methods, and it has the same performance as HybridSN, however, better in computational efficiency.Figure8(a) portrays the false-color map, Figure 8(b) the reference ground truth map, and Figures 8(c)–8(i) are classification maps for the SA dataset using SVM, 2D-CNN, 3D-CNN, M3D-CNN, SSRN, HybridSN, and our proposed model, respectively. The quality of the classification map is still comparatively better with our model, with a significant percentage surpassing the SSRN and HybridSN models. Also, our model has a distinct and correct classification with no ambiguity in the class label. Other SOTA methods with red “+” on the class labels depict misclassification. These labels are Fallow_rough_plow, Corn_senesced_green_weeds, and Vinyard_untrained. Figure 9 gives the accuracy and loss convergence of the train set on the SA dataset with 100 epochs of our proposed model. The model converges at approximately 40 epochs, confirming that our model delivers high computation efficiency using 30% of the train set.Figure 8
The Salinas Scene (SA) hyperspectral data, (a) is the false-color composite (b) the reference ground truth (GT) map, and (c)–(i) are the comparison classification maps for SVM, 2D-CNN, 3D-CNN, M3D-CNN, SSRN, HybridSN, and our proposed model, respectively. The classes that were not classified correctly are indicated with the red “+” symbol.
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)Figure 9
The model accuracy and loss convergence on 30% of the train set on the Salinas Scene (SA) dataset.
(a)(b)With 30% train data, we can conclude that our model outperformed other SOTA models. Notably, we compared our model with the HybridSN [46] method using 30% of the available labeled samples in the KSC and BS datasets as the training set. Table 6 records the result of per-class classification accuracy for the BS dataset. Several works from the literature have not published any results on the BS dataset. However, running the HybridSN [46] model on the BS dataset for comparison confirms that our model performs better on the BS dataset. The BS dataset requires further study on the application of HSI models as it is characterized by low spatial resolution multispectral satellite images. Table 7 shows the per-class accuracy achieved on 30% of the training set on the KSC dataset. The bold points emphasize the best of our model compared to the HybridSN model.Table 6
Classification and analysis result of per-class accuracy on the Botswana (BS) dataset.
#Class labelsHybridSNProposedC1Water10099.94C2Hippo grass100100C3Floodplain grasses 1100100C4Floodplain grasses 2100100C5Reeds 194.68100C6Riparian99.4799.47C7Firescar 2100100C8Island interior10099.3C9Acacia woodlands100100C10Acacia shrublands100100C11Acacia grasslands100100C12Short mopane100100C13Mixed mopane100100C14Exposed soils96.97100OA99.43 ± 0.399.82 ± 0.4Kappa99.38 ± 0.199.81 ± 0.4AA99.36 ± 0.699.84 ± 0.1Table 7
Classification and analysis result of per-class accuracy on the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) dataset.
#Class labelHybridSNProposed1Scurb96.9397.082Willow-swamp82.1974.433Cabbage-palm-hammock86.5291.744Cabbage-palm/oak-hammock6374.455Slash-pine95.171006Oak/broadleaf-hammock83.598.067Hardwood-swamp89.3688.38Graminoid-marsh91.2490.469Spartina-marsh64.3264.5310Cattail-marsh74.1895.0511Salt-marsh10010012Mud-flats98.0110013Water100100OA88.791.71Kappa87.490.76AA86.4990.32As shown in Figure10, our model’s training accuracy and loss convergence after 100 epochs engaging 30% of the BS data as a training set. The model converges at almost 50 epochs, verifying quick feature learning of our model.Figure 10
The model accuracy and loss convergence on 30% of the train set on the BS dataset.
(a)(b)Table8 presents the overall accuracy performance regarding OA, Kappa, and AA for classic classifiers and deep neural network models. Our model achieves competing accuracy across the three datasets (IP, PU, and SA), maintaining a minimum standard deviation across all the experiments consecutively. This is due to a sequential representation of spectral-spatial 3D-CNN and a spatial 2D-CNN, succeeded by ResNeXt-50 for feature extraction.Table 8
The classiﬁcation accuracies (in percentages) on the IP, PU, and SA on our model plus the state-of-the-art methods by a 30% training dataset.
MethodsDatasetsIPPUSAOAKappaAAOAKappaAAOAKappaAASVM85.30 ± 2.883.10 ± 3.279.03 ± 2.794.34 ± 0.292.50 ± 0.792.98 ± 0.492.95 ± 0.392.11 ± 0.294.60 ± 2.32D-CNN89.48 ± 0.287.96 ± 0.586.14 ± 0.897.86 ± 0.297.16 ± 0.596.55 ± 0.097.38 ± 0.097.08 ± 0.198.84 ± 0.13D-CNN91.10 ± 0.489.98 ± 0.591.58 ± 0.296.51 ± 0.295.51 ± 0.297.57 ± 1.393.96 ± 0.293.32 ± 0.597.01 ± 0.6M3D-CNN95.32 ± 0.399.07 ± 0.398.93 ± 0.695.76 ± 0.294.50 ± 0.295.08 ± 1.294.79 ± 0.394.20 ± 0.296.25 ± 0.6SSRN99.19 ± 0.399.07 ± 0.398.93 ± 0.699.90 ± 0.099.87 ± 0.099.91 ± 0.099.98 ± 0.199.97 ± 0.199.97 ± 0.0HybridSN99.75 ± 0.199.71 ± 0.199.63 ± 0.299.98 ± 0.099.98 ± 0.099.97 ± 0.0100 ± 0.0100 ± 0.0100 ± 0.0Proposed99.85 ± 0.699.83 ± 0.299.76 ± 0.299.98 ± 0.999.98 ± 0.499.97 ± 0.4100 ± 0.0100 ± 0.0100 ± 0.0From Table8, our model outperforms SVM in terms of OA, Kappa, and AA with 14.55, 16.73, and 20.73 percentage points, respectively, on the IP dataset. Additionally, it yielded better classification results than the 2D-CNN, 3D-CNN, M3D-CNN, SSRN, and HybridSN with an OA, Kappa, and AA accuracies of 99.85%, 99.83%, and 99.76%, respectively. Figures 11(a)–11(c) sequentially represent an absolute confusion matrix highlighting the proposed model’s performance on 30% training samples of the IP, UP, and SA datasets. We recognize that relatively great diagonal values with different colors are situated across the central diagonal of the entire matrices. This signifies that our model significantly decreases the misclassifications of class labels, with many of the classes precisely predicted, producing a more related map regarding the ground truth.Figure 11
The confusion matrices of the (a) Indian Pines (IP), (b) Pavia University (PU), and (c) Salinas Scene (SA) hyperspectral data for the 30% train set.
(a)(b)(c)Table9 demonstrates the results of our proposed model with various SOTA methods on IP, PU, and SA with 10% of the training set. Our model achieves higher classification accuracy in all considered HSI scenes. The overall accuracy (OA), respectively, mounted to 98.78%, 99.80%, and 99.99% on IP, PU, and SA datasets. Hence, proving our proposed model is somewhat better to the SOTA methods in nearly all states, while maintaining the least standard deviation.Table 9
The classiﬁcation accuracies (in percentages) on the IP, PU, and SA on our model plus the modern classification methods by a 10% training dataset.
MethodsIPPUSAOAKappaAAOAKappaAAOAKappaAA2D-CNN80.2778.2668.3296.6395.5394.8496.3495.9394.363D-CNN82.6279.2576.5196.3494.997.038593.289.63M3D-CNN81.3981.275.2295.9593.497.5294.293.6196.66SSRN98.4598.2386.1999.6299.599.4999.6499.699.76HybridSN98.3998.1698.0199.7299.6499.299.9899.9899.98Proposed98.7898.6098.4999.8099.7399.6799.9999.9999.99Figures12–14 emphasizes the training accuracy and loss for our proposed model, and Figure 15 illustrates the confusion matrix of the three datasets, i.e., IP, PU, and SA.Figure 12
The model accuracy and loss convergence for the Indian Pines (IP) dataset with a 10% train data.
(a)(b)Figure 13
The model accuracy and loss convergence for the Pavia University (PU) dataset with a 10% train data.
(a)(b)Figure 14
The model accuracy and loss convergence for the Salinas Scene (SA) dataset with a 10% train data.
(a)(b)Figure 15
The confusion matrices of the (a) Indian Pines (IP), (b) Pavia University (PU), and (c) Salinas Scene (SA) hyperspectral data for the 10% train set.
(a)(b)(c)Table10 presents the execution time on the IP, PU, and SA datasets with spectral-spatial SOTA methods. The execution time is based on the GPU computational training time (m) and testing time (s). We can conclude that our model outperforms the other spectral-spatial models in training and test time. This is due to early stopping, accuracy monitoring, and adopted regularization technique during the training process that helps minimize computational complexity, while steadily maintaining classification performance.Table 10
Training time (m) and testing (s) on three HSI datasets (IP, PU, and SA).
Data3D-CNNHybridSNProposedTrain (m)Test (s)Train (m)Test (s)Train (m)Test (s)IP15.24.314.14.89.93.2PU58.010.620.36.620.25.3SA7415.225.59.0244.9We ran this on MacBook Pro (Retina, macOS Catalina, and processor: 2.3 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7, 8 GB 1600 MHz DDR3-NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M (Memory), and Software: Python and Google Colaboratory ltd., with 1 GPU acceleration mode and 25.7 GB RAM.


## 6. Conclusion

This work extends the HybridSN model by proposing a 3D-2D convolutional neural network and transfer learning model for the HSI classification. We introduced a bottleneck layer (ResNeXt-50) in our model to drastically decrease the number of parameters. This helps minimize the computational time than the HybridSN model, while steadily maintaining classification performance. To combat overfitting, we employ early stopping with dropout regularization techniques. The advantage of our 3D-2D convolutional neural network and transfer learning model is the ability to perform highly in a spectral-spatial way. Experiments with five diverse HSI datasets prove that our proposed model did exceptionally well and showed effectiveness. It outperforms the SOTA approaches; hence, it confirms more understanding of the 3D spectral-spatial HSI classification. However, we only trained a few datasets on our model. We recommend future works to consider additional datasets for training and testing our model and implementing them to deep learning methods in HSI classification.



---

*Source: 1759111-2021-08-23.xml*