Comparison of Machine and Deep Learning Methods to Estimate Shrub Willow Biomass from UAS Imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shrub willow is considered an important dedicated energy crop in temperate climates for the production of bioenergy, biofuels, and bio-based products. A methodology to rapidly and accurately estimate above-ground biomass (AGB) is essential for understanding potential biomass supply, identifying potential growth limitations, and making management decisions. The main objective of this study was to investigate different statistical, machine learning, and deep learning models to estimate shrub willow AGB at a site in Camillus, NY using multi-spectral unmanned aerial system (UAS) imagery. The efficiency of the convolutional neural network (CNN) deep learning algorithm was compared to the well-known methods including linear regression, decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), and support vector regression (SVR). The RF model estimated the AGB with the root mean square error (RMSE) of 1.73 Mg/ha and R2 of 0.95, and outperformed other methods. The next most effective method was CNN with the RMSE of 2.69 Mg/ha and R2 of 0.89. Feature importance analysis indicated that normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), ratio vegetation index (RVI), and difference vegetation index (DVI) had the greatest contribution to AGB estimation. This study compared shrub willow AGB estimation models using UAS imagery which will streamline bioenergy/biofuel development compared to the existing methods.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".