Sensitivity Analysis of Parameters of U-Net Model for Semantic Segmentation of Silt Storage Dams from Remote Sensing Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building silt storage dams is an important measure to control soil erosion. Sensitivity analysis of the parameters in a deep learning model is the premise of extracting high-precision silt storage dams from high-resolution remote sensing (RS) images. In this study, watershed features of Hulu River and Lanni River in the Loess Plateau, China, are extracted using a geographic information system and digital elevation model. The detection of silt storage dams using the U-Net model considered three high-resolution RS image datasets to evaluate the effect of different input sizes, batch sizes, and sample sizes on accuracies of silt storage dams. The results show that a large input size, batch size, and sample size can improve the accuracy of silt storage dams extracted by U-Net. U-Net with Dataset 3, input size of 576 × 576, and batch size of 4 achieved an overall accuracy of 96.26%, F1 score of 70.61%, mean intersection over union of 75.33%, training time of 485 ms/step, minimum noises and shadow, and clear outlines of silt storage dams. This study provides theoretical and practical decision-making for the planning, construction, and maintenance of silt storage dams, as well as ecological protection and high-quality development of the Yellow River Basin.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".