Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 266

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing fully convolutional networks, random forest, support vector machine, and patch-based deep convolutional neural networks for object-based wetland mapping using images from small unmanned aircraft system

Open access
Liu, Tao, Abd-Elrahman, Amr, Morton, Jon, Wilhelm, Victor L.·2018·GIScience & Remote Sensing

Abstract

Deep learning networks have shown great success in several computer vision applications, but its implementation in natural land cover mapping in the context of object-based image analysis (OBIA) is rarely explored area especially in terms of the impact of training sample size on the performance comparison. In this study, two representatives of deep learning networks including fully convolutional networks (FCN) and patch-based deep convolutional neural networks (DCNN), and two conventional classifiers including random forest and support vector machine were implemented within the framework of OBIA to classify seven natural land cover types. We assessed the deep learning classifiers using different training sample sizes and compared their performance with traditional classifiers. FCN was implemented using two types of training samples to investigate its ability to utilize object surrounding information.Our results indicate that DCNN may produce inferior performance compared to conventional classifiers when the training sample size is small, but it tends to show substantially higher accuracy than the conventional classifiers when the training sample size becomes large. The results also imply that FCN is more efficient in utilizing the information in the training sample than DCNN and conventional classifiers, with higher if not similar achieved accuracy regardless of sample size. DCNN and FCN tend to show similar performance for the large sample size when the training samples used for training the FCN do not contain object surrounding label information. However, with the ability of utilizing surrounding label information, FCN always achieved much higher accuracy than all the other classification methods regardless of the number of training samples.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15481603.2018.1426091

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Metadata

Authors
Liu, T., Abd-Elrahman, A., Morton, J., & Wilhelm, V. L.
Venue
GIScience & Remote Sensing
Published
2018-01-19
Volume
55
Issue
2
Pages
243-264
ISSN
  • 1548-1603 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-7226
OpenAlex
W2793091350
Cited by
266
References
10
FWCI
25.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparing fully convolutional networks, random forest, support vector machine, and patch-based deep convolutional neural networks for object-based wetland mapping using images from small unmanned aircraft system. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/15481603.2018.1426091
The paper
Liu, T., Abd-Elrahman, A., Morton, J., & Wilhelm, V. L. (2018). Comparing fully convolutional networks, random forest, support vector machine, and patch-based deep convolutional neural networks for object-based wetland mapping using images from small unmanned aircraft system. GIScience & Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.1080/15481603.2018.1426091

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.