Deep Forest classifier for wetland mapping using the combination of Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wetlands are among the most important, yet in danger ecosystems and play a vital role for the well-being of humans as well as flora and fauna. Over the past few years, state-of-the-art deep learning (DL) tools have gained attention for wetland classification within the remote sensing community. However, the DL methods could have complex structure and their efficiency greatly depends on the availability of a large number of training data. Inspired by DL methods, yet with less complexity, the Deep Forest (DF) classifier is an advanced tree-based deep learning tool with a great capability for several remote sensing applications. Despite the effectiveness of DF classifiers, few research studies have investigated the potential of such a powerful technique for classification of remote sensing, with no documented research for wetland classification. Accordingly, the potential of the DF algorithm for the classification of wetland complexes has been investigated in this study. In particular, three well-known classifiers, namely Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), Random Forest (RF), and Extra Tree (ET), were used as the tree-based classifier to build DF, for which the hyper parameter tuning is carried out to ensure the optimum classification accuracy. Three well-known tree-based classification algorithms, namely Decision Tree (DT), Conventional Random Forest (CRF), and Conventional Extreme Gradient Boosting (CXGB), as well as a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) are used as benchmark tools to compare the results obtained from the DF classifiers for wetland mapping. The results demonstrated that the DF-XGB classifier outperforms both DF-RF and DF-ET in terms of classification accuracy albeit with a longer training time. The results also confirmed the superiority of all three DF-based classifiers compared to the CRF and DT classifiers. For example, the DF-XGB improved the F1-score by 14%, 13%, 7%, 3%, and 1% for fen, swamp, marsh, bog, and shallow water, respectively, compared to the optimized CRF. The results indicated that the DF algorithm has great capability to be applied over large areas to support regional and national wetland mapping and monitoring.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".