Fusing Landsat and SAR Data for Mapping Tropical Deforestation through Machine Learning Classification and the PVts- <b>β</b> Non-Seasonal Detection Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on mapping tropical deforestation using time series and machine learning algorithms. Before detecting changes in the time series, we reduced seasonality using Photosynthetic Vegetation (PV) index fractions obtained from Landsat images. Single and multi-temporal filters were used to reduce speckle noise from Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images (i.e., ALOS PALSAR and Sentinel-1B) before fusing them with optical images through Principal Component Analysis (PCA). We detected only one change in the two PV series using a non-seasonal detection approach, as well as in the fused images through five machine learning algorithms that were calibrated with Cross-Validation (CV) and Monte Carlo Cross-Validation (MCCV). In total, four categories were obtained: forest, cropland, bare soil, and water. We then compared the change map obtained with time series and that obtained with the classification algorithms with the best calibration performance, revealing an overall accuracy of 92.91% and 91.82%, respectively. For statistical comparisons, we used deforestation reference data. Finally, we conclude with some discussions and reflections on the advantages and disadvantages of the detections made with time series and machine learning algorithms, as well as the contribution of SAR images to the classifications, among other aspects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".