Maximizing the Diversity of Ensemble Random Forests for Tree Genera Classification Using High Density LiDAR Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research into improving the effectiveness of forest inventory management using airborne LiDAR data has focused on developing advanced theories in data analytics. Furthermore, supervised learning as a predictive model for classifying tree genera (and species, where possible) has been gaining popularity in order to minimize this labor-intensive task. However, bottlenecks remain that hinder the immediate adoption of supervised learning methods. With supervised classification, training samples are required for learning the parameters that govern the performance of a classifier, yet the selection of training data is often subjective and the quality of such samples is critically important. For LiDAR scanning in forest environments, the quantification of data quality is somewhat abstract, normally referring to some metric related to the completeness of individual tree crowns; however, this is not an issue that has received much attention in the literature. Intuitively the choice of training samples having varying quality will affect classification accuracy. In this paper a Diversity Index (DI) is proposed that characterizes the diversity of data quality (Qi) among selected training samples required for constructing a classification model of tree genera. The training sample is diversified in terms of data quality as opposed to the number of samples per class. The diversified training sample allows the classifier to better learn the positive and negative instances and; therefore; has a higher classification accuracy in discriminating the “unknown” class samples from the “known” samples. Our algorithm is implemented within the Random Forests base classifiers with six derived geometric features from LiDAR data. The training sample contains three tree genera (pine; poplar; and maple) and the validation samples contains four labels (pine; poplar; maple; and “unknown”). Classification accuracy improved from 72.8%; when training samples were selected randomly (with stratified sample size); to 93.8%; when samples were selected with additional criteria; and from 88.4% to 93.8% when an ensemble method was used.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".