CNN-Based Individual Tree Species Classification Using High-Resolution Satellite Imagery and Airborne LiDAR Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) has shown promising performances in various remote sensing applications as a powerful tool. To explore the great potential of DL in improving the accuracy of individual tree species (ITS) classification, four convolutional neural network models (ResNet-18, ResNet-34, ResNet-50, and DenseNet-40) were employed to classify four tree species using the combined high-resolution satellite imagery and airborne LiDAR data. A total of 1503 samples of four tree species, including maple, pine, locust, and spruce, were used in the experiments. When both WorldView-2 and airborne LiDAR data were used, the overall accuracies (OA) obtained by ResNet-18, ResNet-34, ResNet-50, and DenseNet-40 were 90.9%, 89.1%, 89.1%, and 86.9%, respectively. The OA of ResNet-18 was increased by 4.0% and 1.8% compared with random forest (86.7%) and support vector machine (89.1%), respectively. The experimental results demonstrated that the size of input images impacted on the classification accuracy of ResNet-18. It is suggested that the input size of ResNet models can be determined according to the maximum size of all tree crown sample images. The use of LiDAR intensity image was helpful in improving the accuracies of ITS classification and atmospheric correction is unnecessary when both pansharpened WorldView-2 images and airborne LiDAR data were used.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".