4.3 Article

Comparison of support vector machine, random forest and neural network classifiers for tree species classification on airborne hyperspectral APEX images

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING
Volume 50, Issue 1, Pages 144-154

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/22797254.2017.1299557

Keywords

Support vector machines; random forest; artificial neural networks; hyperspectral data; classification

Categories

Funding

  1. Polish Ministry of Sciences and Higher Education from science development funds [DI2012020042]
  2. National Centre for Research and Development project: Ecosystem stress from the combined effects of winter climate change and air pollution - how do the impacts differ between biomes? (WICLAP) [POL-NOR/198571/83/2013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Knowledge of tree species composition in a forest is an important topic in forest management. Accurate tree species maps allow for much more detailed and in-depth analysis of biophysical forest variables. The paper presents a comparison of three classification algorithms: support vector machines (SVM), random forest (RF) and artificial neural networks (ANN) for tree species classification using airborne hyperspectral data from the Airborne Prism EXperiment sensor. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the three nonparametric classification algorithms (SVM, RF and ANN) in an attempt to classify the five most common tree species of the Szklarska Poreba area: spruce (Picea alba L. Karst), larch (Larix decidua Mill.), alder (Alnus Mill), beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and birch (Betula pendula Roth). To avoid human introduced biases a 0.632 bootstrap procedure was used during evaluation of each compared classifier. Of all compared classification results, ANN achieved the highest median overall classification accuracy (77%) followed by SVM with 68% and RF with 62%. Analysis of the stability of results concluded that RF and SVM had the lowest variance of overall accuracy and kappa coefficient (12 percentage points) while ANN had 15 percentage points variance in results.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available