Machine Learning-Based Lithological Mapping from ASTER Remote-Sensing Imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurately mapping lithological features is essential for geological surveys and the exploration of mineral resources. Remote-sensing images have been widely used to extract information about mineralized alteration zones due to their cost-effectiveness and potential for being widely applied. Automated methods, such as machine-learning algorithms, for lithological mapping using satellite imagery have also received attention. This study aims to map lithologies and minerals indirectly through machine-learning algorithms using advanced spaceborne thermal emission and reflection radiometer (ASTER) remote-sensing data. The capabilities of several machine-learning (ML) algorithms were evaluated for lithological mapping, including random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), gradient boosting (GB), extreme gradient boosting (XGB), and a deep-learning artificial neural network (ANN). These methods were applied to ASTER imagery of the Sar-Cheshmeh copper mining region of Kerman Province, in southern Iran. First, several spectral features that were extracted from ASTER bands were used as input data. Second, correlation coefficients between the original spectral bands and features were extracted. The importance of the random forest features (RF’s feature importance) was subsequently computed, and features with less importance were removed. Finally, the remained features were given to the models as input data in the second scenario. Accuracy assessments were performed for lithological classes in the study region, including Sar-Cheshmeh porphyry, quartz eye, late fine porphyry, hornblende dike, granodiorite, feldspar dike, biotite dike, andesite, and alluvium. The overall accuracy results of lithological mapping showed that ML-based algorithms without feature extraction have the highest accuracy. The overall accuracy percentages for ML-based algorithms without conducting feature extraction were 84%, 85%, 80%, 82%, and 80% for RF, SVM, GB, XGB, and ANN, respectively. The results of this study would be of great interest to geologists for lithological mapping and mineral exploration, particularly for selecting appropriate ML-based techniques to be implemented in similar regions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".