4.7 Review

Support Vector Machine Versus Random Forest for Remote Sensing Image Classification: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/JSTARS.2020.3026724

关键词

Support vector machines; Classification algorithms; Image classification; Radio frequency; Deep learning; Hyperspectral sensors; Image classification; meta-analysis; random forest (RF); remote sensing (RS); support vector machine (SVM)

资金

  1. European Union's the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency underGrant Agreement Connecting Europe Facility Telecom Project [2018-EU-IA-0095]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several machine-learning algorithms have been proposed for remote sensing image classification during the past two decades. Among these machine learning algorithms, Random Forest (RF) and Support Vector Machines (SVM) have drawn attention to image classification in several remote sensing applications. This article reviews RF and SVM concepts relevant to remote sensing image classification and applies a meta-analysis of 251 peer-reviewed journal papers. A database with more than 40 quantitative and qualitative fields was constructed from these reviewed papers. The meta-analysis mainly focuses on 1) the analysis regarding the general characteristics of the studies, such as geographical distribution, frequency of the papers considering time, journals, application domains, and remote sensing software packages used in the case studies, and 2) a comparative analysis regarding the performances of RF and SVM classification against various parameters, such as data type, RS applications, spatial resolution, and the number of extracted features in the feature engineering step. The challenges, recommendations, and potential directions for future research are also discussed in detail. Moreover, a summary of the results is provided to aid researchers to customize their efforts in order to achieve the most accurate results based on their thematic applications.

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