Exploring the Sensitivity of Recurrent Neural Network Models for Forecasting Land Cover Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), including Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) architectures, have obtained successful outcomes in timeseries analysis tasks. While RNNs demonstrated favourable performance for Land Cover (LC) change analyses, few studies have explored or quantified the geospatial data characteristics required to utilize this method. Likewise, many studies utilize overall measures of accuracy rather than metrics accounting for the slow or sparse changes of LC that are typically observed. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of LSTM models for forecasting LC changes by conducting a sensitivity analysis involving hypothetical and real-world datasets. The intent of this assessment is to explore the implications of varying temporal resolutions and LC classes. Additionally, changing these input data characteristics impacts the number of timesteps and LC change rates provided to the respective models. Kappa variants are selected to explore the capacity of LSTM models for forecasting transitions or persistence of LC. Results demonstrate the adverse effects of coarser temporal resolutions and high LC class cardinality on method performance, despite method optimization techniques applied. This study suggests various characteristics of geospatial datasets that should be present before considering LSTM methods for LC change forecasting.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".