Comparing Solo Versus Ensemble Convolutional Neural Networks for Wetland Classification Using Multi-Spectral Satellite Imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wetlands are important ecosystems that are linked to climate change mitigation. As 25% of global wetlands are located in Canada, accurate and up-to-date wetland classification is of high importance, nationally and internationally. The advent of deep learning techniques has revolutionized the current use of machine learning algorithms to classify complex environments, specifically in remote sensing. In this paper, we explore the potential and possible limitations to be overcome regarding the use of ensemble deep learning techniques for complex wetland classification and discusses the potential and limitation of various solo convolutional neural networks (CNNs), including DenseNet, GoogLeNet, ShuffleNet, MobileNet, Xception, Inception-ResNet, ResNet18, and ResNet101 in three different study areas located in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada (i.e., Avalon, Gros Morne, and Grand Falls). Moreover, to improve the classification accuracies of wetland classes of bog, fen, marsh, swamp, and shallow water, the results of the three best CNNs in each study area is fused using three supervised classifiers of random forest (RF), bagged tree (BTree), Bayesian optimized tree (BOT), and one unsupervised majority voting classifier. The results suggest that the ensemble models, in particular BTree, have a valuable role to play in the classification of wetland classes of bog, fen, marsh, swamp, and shallow water. The ensemble CNNs show an improvement of 9.63–19.04% in terms of mean producer’s accuracy compared to the solo CNNs, to recognize wetland classes in three different study areas. This research indicates a promising potential for integrating ensemble-based learning and deep learning for operational large area land cover, particularly complex wetland type classification.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".