Using error-in-variable regression to predict tree diameter and crown width from remotely sensed imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated individual tree detection and delineation from high spatial resolution imagery provides good opportunities for forest inventory at a large scale. However, the accuracy of delineated crown size compared with ground measurements may not be sufficient. Thus, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression is no longer an appropriate approach to estimating and predicting variables from the delineated tree crown because both response variable and regressor are subject to measurement errors. In this study, we describe the functional and structural relationships between field-measured tree variables (i.e., tree diameter and crown width) and delineated tree crown width from remotely sensed imagery. We investigated the performance of OLS and three error-in-variable regression techniques including maximum likelihood estimator (MLE), major axis (MA) regression, and reduced major axis (RMA) regression using field-measured data and simulated data under different conditions. Our results indicated that MLE was desirable for estimating unbiased model coefficients. However, the adjustment assumption of the MLE model should be checked for predicting tree variables from remotely sensed imagery. When the assumption holds, the MLE model performed better for predicting the response variables than did the OLS model. Otherwise, the MLE model produced biased predictions for the response variables.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".