Decision tree-based machine learning models for above-ground biomass estimation using multi-source remote sensing data and object-based image analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest above-ground biomass (AGB) estimation provides valuable information about the carbon cycle. Thus, the overall goal of this paper is to present an approach to enhance the accuracy of the AGB estimation. The main objectives are to: 1) investigate the performance of remote sensing data sources, including airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR), optical, SAR, and their combination to improve the AGB predictions, 2) examine the capability of tree-based machine learning models, and 3) compare the performance of pixel-based and object-based image analysis (OBIA). To investigate the performance of machine learning models, multiple tree-based algorithms were fitted to predictors derived from airborne LiDAR data, Landsat, Sentinel-2, Sentinel-1, and PALSAR-2/PALSAR SAR data collected within New York’s Adirondack Park. Combining remote sensing data from multiple sources improved the model accuracy (RMSE: 52.14 Mg ha−1 and R2: 0.49). There was no significant difference among gradient boosting machine (GBM), random forest (RF), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) models. In addition, pixel-based and object-based models were compared using the airborne LiDAR-derived AGB raster as a training/testing sample. The OBIA provided the best results with the RMSE of 33.77 Mg ha−1 and R2 of 0.81 for the combination of optical and SAR data in the GBM model.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".