4.7 Article

Comparing Machine Learning Classifiers for Object-Based Land Cover Classification Using Very High Resolution Imagery

Journal

REMOTE SENSING
Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 153-168

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs70100153

Keywords

object-based classification; machine learning classifiers; very high resolution image; urban area; tuning parameters

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41371197]
  2. One hundred talents program of Chinese Academy of Sciences
  3. National Key Technology R&D Program of China during the Twelfth Five-Year Plan Period [2012BAC13B01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluates and compares the performance of four machine learning classifiers-support vector machine (SVM), normal Bayes (NB), classification and regression tree (CART) and K nearest neighbor (KNN)-to classify very high resolution images, using an object-based classification procedure. In particular, we investigated how tuning parameters affect the classification accuracy with different training sample sizes. We found that: (1) SVM and NB were superior to CART and KNN, and both could achieve high classification accuracy (> 90%); (2) the setting of tuning parameters greatly affected classification accuracy, particularly for the most commonly-used SVM classifier; the optimal values of tuning parameters might vary slightly with the size of training samples; (3) the size of training sample also greatly affected the classification accuracy, when the size of training sample was less than 125. Increasing the size of training samples generally led to the increase of classification accuracies for all four classifiers. In addition, NB and KNN were more sensitive to the sample sizes. This research provides insights into the selection of classifiers and the size of training samples. It also highlights the importance of the appropriate setting of tuning parameters for different machine learning classifiers and provides useful information for optimizing these parameters.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available