Bagging and Boosting Ensemble Classifiers for Classification of Multispectral, Hyperspectral and PolSAR Data: A Comparative Evaluation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, several powerful machine learning (ML) algorithms have been developed for image classification, especially those based on ensemble learning (EL). In particular, Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) methods have attracted researchers’ attention in data science due to their superior results compared to other commonly used ML algorithms. Despite their popularity within the computer science community, they have not yet been well examined in detail in the field of Earth Observation (EO) for satellite image classification. As such, this study investigates the capability of different EL algorithms, generally known as bagging and boosting algorithms, including Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost), Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), XGBoost, LightGBM, and Random Forest (RF), for the classification of Remote Sensing (RS) data. In particular, different classification scenarios were designed to compare the performance of these algorithms on three different types of RS data, namely high-resolution multispectral, hyperspectral, and Polarimetric Synthetic Aperture Radar (PolSAR) data. Moreover, the Decision Tree (DT) single classifier, as a base classifier, is considered to evaluate the classification’s accuracy. The experimental results demonstrated that the RF and XGBoost methods for the multispectral image, the LightGBM and XGBoost methods for hyperspectral data, and the XGBoost and RF algorithms for PolSAR data produced higher classification accuracies compared to other ML techniques. This demonstrates the great capability of the XGBoost method for the classification of different types of RS data.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it