EVALUATING PIXEL-BASED AND OBJECT-BASED APPROACHES FOR FOREST ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS ESTIMATION USING A COMBINATION OF OPTICAL, SAR, AND AN EXTREME GRADIENT BOOSTING MODEL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The above-ground biomass (AGB) estimation monitoring provides a powerful tool for the assessment of carbon emission and sequestration. Using remote sensing technique is an environmentally friendly way of biomass estimation. Thus, this paper investigated optical (i.e. Landsat 8 OLI and Sentinel-2), synthetic aperture radar (SAR) (global phased array type L-band SAR (PALSAR/PALSAR-2) and Sentinel-1), and their integration for AGB estimation of the Pack demonstration forest in Warrensburg, NY. Importantly, a LiDAR AGB raster of the study area was used as reference data for training/testing purposes. Then, an extreme gradient boosting (Xgboost) machine learning model was used to predict biomass values. The major goal of this study was to compare the performance of pixel-based and object-based image analysis (OBIA) for the AGB estimation. Results indicated that the object-based approach improved the RMSE of AGB prediction about 6.28 Mg/ha for optical + SAR, 6.17 Mg/ha for SAR, and 5.6 Mg/ha for optical data in comparison to the pixel-based approach. Moreover, the combination of optical and SAR data increased the prediction accuracy regardless of feature extraction approach.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".