Support Vector Machine Versus Random Forest for Remote Sensing Image Classification: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several machine-learning algorithms have been proposed for remote sensing image classification during the past two decades. Among these machine learning algorithms, Random Forest (RF) and Support Vector Machines (SVM) have drawn attention to image classification in several remote sensing applications. This article reviews RF and SVM concepts relevant to remote sensing image classification and applies a meta-analysis of 251 peer-reviewed journal papers. A database with more than 40 quantitative and qualitative fields was constructed from these reviewed papers. The meta-analysis mainly focuses on 1) the analysis regarding the general characteristics of the studies, such as geographical distribution, frequency of the papers considering time, journals, application domains, and remote sensing software packages used in the case studies, and 2) a comparative analysis regarding the performances of RF and SVM classification against various parameters, such as data type, RS applications, spatial resolution, and the number of extracted features in the feature engineering step. The challenges, recommendations, and potential directions for future research are also discussed in detail. Moreover, a summary of the results is provided to aid researchers to customize their efforts in order to achieve the most accurate results based on their thematic applications.
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 | 0.023 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".