4.6 Article

Remote sensing tree classification with a multilayer perceptron

期刊

PEERJ
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PEERJ INC
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.6101

关键词

Airborne remote sensing; Data alignment; Species classification; Crown segmentation; National ecological observatory network; Crown delineation; Remote sensing; Data science competition; Multilayer perceptron

资金

  1. NIST IAD Data Science Research Program
  2. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation's Data-Driven Discovery Initiative [GBMF4563]
  3. NSF Dimension of Biodiversity program [DEB-1442280]
  4. National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To accelerate scientific progress on remote tree classification-as well as biodiversity and ecology sampling-The National Institute of Science and Technology created a community-based competition where scientists were invited to contribute informatics methods for classifying tree species and genus using crown-level images of trees. We classified tree species and genus at the pixel level using hyperspectral and LiDAR observations. We compared three algorithms that have been implemented extensively across a broad range of research applications: support vector machines, random forests, and multilayer perceptron. At the pixel level, the multilayer perceptron algorithm classified species or genus with high accuracy (92.7% and 95.9%, respectively) on the training data and performed better than the other two algorithms (85.8-93.5%). This indicates promise for the use of the multilayer perceptron (MLP) algorithm for tree-species classification based on hyperspectral and LiDAR observations and coincides with a growing body of research in which neural network-based algorithms outperform other types of classification algorithm for machine vision. To aggregate patterns across the images, we used an ensemble approach that averages the pixel-level outputs of the MLP algorithm to classify species at the crown level. The average accuracy of these classifications on the test set was 68.8% for the nine species.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据