4.7 Article

Gradient Boosting Machine and Object-Based CNN for Land Cover Classification

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 13, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs13142709

关键词

object-based image analysis; gradient boosting; convolutional neural network; land cover

资金

  1. Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) [105.99-2020.09]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study combines CNN with XGBoost, LightGBM, and Catboost for land cover analysis in Hanoi, Vietnam. The results show that CNN-based XGBoost, LightGBM, and CatBoost outperform other methods, indicating that object-based image analysis combined with CNN-based gradient boosting significantly improves classification accuracies and offers alternative methods for land cover analysis.
In regular convolutional neural networks (CNN), fully-connected layers act as classifiers to estimate the probabilities for each instance in classification tasks. The accuracy of CNNs can be improved by replacing fully connected layers with gradient boosting algorithms. In this regard, this study investigates three robust classifiers, namely XGBoost, LightGBM, and Catboost, in combination with a CNN for a land cover study in Hanoi, Vietnam. The experiments were implemented using SPOT7 imagery through (1) image segmentation and extraction of features, including spectral information and spatial metrics, (2) normalization of attribute values and generation of graphs, and (3) using graphs as the input dataset to the investigated models for classifying six land cover classes, namely House, Bare land, Vegetation, Water, Impervious Surface, and Shadow. The results show that CNN-based XGBoost (Overall accuracy = 0.8905), LightGBM (0.8956), and CatBoost (0.8956) outperform the other methods used for comparison. It can be seen that the combination of object-based image analysis and CNN-based gradient boosting algorithms significantly improves classification accuracies and can be considered as alternative methods for land cover analysis.

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

4.7
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