Swin Transformer and Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Coastal Wetland Classification Using Sentinel-1, Sentinel-2, and LiDAR Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of machine learning algorithms to classify complex landscapes has been revolutionized by the introduction of deep learning techniques, particularly in remote sensing. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have shown great success in the classification of complex high-dimensional remote sensing imagery, specifically in wetland classification. On the other hand, the state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) algorithms are transformers. Although the transformers have been studied for a few remote sensing applications, the integration of deep CNNs and transformers has not been studied, particularly in wetland mapping. As such, in this study, we explore the potential and possible limitations to be overcome regarding the use of a multi-model deep learning network with the integration of a modified version of the well-known deep CNN network of VGG-16, a 3D CNN network, and Swin transformer for complex coastal wetland classification. Moreover, we discuss the potential and limitation of the proposed multi-model technique over several solo models, including a random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), VGG-16, 3D CNN, and Swin transformer in the pilot site of Saint John city located in New Brunswick, Canada. In terms of F-1 score, the multi-model network obtained values of 0.87, 0.88, 0.89, 0.91, 0.93, 0.93, and 0.93 for the recognition of shrub wetland, fen, bog, aquatic bed, coastal marsh, forested wetland, and freshwater marsh, respectively. The results suggest that the multi-model network is superior to other solo classifiers from 3.36% to 33.35% in terms of average accuracy. Results achieved in this study suggest the high potential for integrating and using CNN networks with the cutting-edge transformers for the classification of complex landscapes in remote sensing.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".