CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Machine Learning Pixel-Based Classifiers for Detecting Archaeological Ceramics

Argyrou, Argyro, Agapiou, Athos, Papakonstantinou, Apostolos, Alexakis, Dimitrios D.·2023·Drones
DOI 10.3390/drones7090578
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent improvements in low-altitude remote sensors and image processing analysis can be utilised to support archaeological research. Over the last decade, the increased use of remote sensing sensors and their products for archaeological science and cultural heritage studies has been reported in the literature. Therefore, different spatial and spectral analysis datasets have been applied to recognise archaeological remains or map environmental changes over time. Recently, more thorough object detection approaches have been adopted by researchers for the automated detection of surface ceramics. In this study, we applied several supervised machine learning classifiers using red-green-blue (RGB) and multispectral high-resolution drone imageries over a simulated archaeological area to evaluate their performance towards semi-automatic surface ceramic detection. The overall results indicated that low-altitude remote sensing sensors and advanced image processing techniques can be innovative in archaeological research. Nevertheless, the study results also pointed out existing research limitations in the detection of surface ceramics, which affect the detection accuracy. The development of a novel, robust methodology aimed to address the “accuracy paradox” of imbalanced data samples for optimising archaeological surface ceramic detection. At the same time, this study attempted to fill a gap in the literature by blending AI methodologies for non-uniformly distributed classes. Indeed, detecting surface ceramics using RGB or multi-spectral drone imageries should be reconsidered as an ‘imbalanced data distribution’ problem. To address this paradox, novel approaches need to be developed.

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 · 10.3390/drones7090578

Cites

1 of 1 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 62

  1. Argyrou, A., and Agapiou, A. (2022). A Review of Artificial Intelligence and Remote Sensing for Archaeological Research. Remote Sens., 14. · DOI
  2. Orengo, 2019, A brave new world for archaeological survey: Automated machine learning-based potsherd detection using high-resolution drone imagery, J. Archaeol. Sci., 112, 105013, 10.1016/j.jas.2019.105013 · DOI
  3. Traviglia, A., and Torsello, A. (2017). Landscape pattern detection in archaeological remote sensing. Geosciences, 7. · DOI
  4. Tapete, D. (2018). Remote Sensing and Geosciences for Archaeology. Geosciences, 8. · DOI
  5. Lasaponara, 2011, Satellite remote sensing in archaeology: Past, present and future perspectives, J. Archaeol. Sci., 38, 1995, 10.1016/j.jas.2011.02.002 · DOI
  6. Fountas, S., and Gemtos, T. (2022, September 07). Γεωργία Aκριβείας [Undergraduate Textbook]. Kallipos, Open Academic Editions. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11419/2670.
  7. Agapiou, A., and Sarris, A. (2018). Beyond GIS Layering: Challenging the (Re)use and Fusion of Archaeological Prospection Data Based on Bayesian Neural Networks (BNN). Remote Sens., 10. · DOI
  8. Campbell, J.B., and Wynne, R.H. (2011). Introduction to Remote Sensing, The Guilford Press. [5th ed.].
  9. Davis, D.S. (2020). Geographic disparity in machine intelligence approaches for archaeological remote sensing research. Remote Sens., 12. · DOI
  10. Sarris, A., Kokkinou, E., Soupios, P., Papadopoulos, E., Trigas, V., Sepsa, O., Gionis, D., Iakovou, M., Agapiou, A., and Satraki, A. (2008). On the Road to Reconstructing the Past, Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, CAA, Budapest, Hungary, 2–6 April 2008, Archaeolingua. in press.
  11. Bicker, 2021, Machine Learning Arrives in Archaeology, Adv. Archaeol. Pract., 6, 186, 10.1017/aap.2021.6 · DOI
  12. Bini, M., Isola, I., Zanchetta, G., Ribolini, A., Ciampalini, A., Baneschi, I., Mele, D., and D’Agata, A.L. (2018). Identification of levelled archaeological mounds (Höyük) in the alluvial plain of the Ceyhan River (Southern Turkey) by satellite remote-sensing analyses. Remote Sens., 10. · DOI
  13. Davis, 2019, Automated mound detection using lidar and object-based image analysis in Beaufort County, South Carolina, Southeast. Archaeol., 38, 23, 10.1080/0734578X.2018.1482186 · DOI
  14. Lambers, 2021, Applying automated object detection in archaeological practice: A case study from the southern Netherlands, Archaeol. Prospect., 29, 15
  15. Albrecht, C.M., Fisher, C., Freitag, M., Hamann, H.F., Pankanti, S., Pezzutti, F., and Rossi, F. (2019, January 9–12). Learning and Recognizing Archeological Features from LiDAR Data. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), Los Angeles, CA, USA. · DOI
  16. Orengo, 2021, New developments in drone-based automated surface survey: Towards a functional and effective survey system, Archaeol. Prospect., 28, 519, 10.1002/arp.1822 · DOI
  17. Snitker, 2022, Detecting historic tar kilns and tar production sites using high-resolution, aerial LiDAR-derived digital elevation models: Introducing the Tar KilnFeature Detection workflow (TKFD) using open-access R and FIJI software, J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep., 41, 103340
  18. Borie, C., Parcero-Oubiña, C., Kwon, Y., Salazar, D., Flores, C., Olguín, L., and Andrade, P. (2019). Beyond site detection: The role of satellite remote sensing in analysing archaeological problems. A case study in Lithic Resource Procurement in the Atacama Desert, Northern Chile. Remote Sens., 11. · DOI
  19. Davis, 2018, Object-Based Image Analysis: A Review of Developments and Future Directions of Automated Feature Detection in Landscape Archaeology, Archaeol. Prospect., 26, 155, 10.1002/arp.1730 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Monna, 2020, Machine learning for rapid mapping of archaeological structures made of dry stones–Example of burial monuments from the Khirgisuur culture, Mongolia, J. Cult. Herit., 43, 118, 10.1016/j.culher.2020.01.002 · DOI
  21. Thabeng, 2019, High-Resolution Remote Sensing and Advanced Classification Techniques for the Prospection of Archaeological Sites’ Markers: The Case of Dung Deposits in the Shashi-Limpopo Confluence Area (Southern Africa), J. Archaeol. Sci., 102, 48, 10.1016/j.jas.2018.12.003 · DOI
  22. Kadhim, I., and Abed, F.M. (2021). The Potential of LiDAR and UAV-Photogrammetric Data Analysis to Interpret Archaeological Sites: A Case Study of Chun Castle in South-West England. Int. J. Geo-Inf., 10. · DOI
  23. Luo, 2019, Airborne and spaceborne remote sensing for archaeological and cultural heritage applications: A review of the century (1907–2017), Remote Sens. Environ., 232, 111280, 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111280 · DOI
  24. Materazzi, 2022, Archaeological crop marks detection through drone multispectral remote sensing and vegetation indices: A new approach tested on the Italian pre-Roman city of Veii, J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep., 41, 103235
  25. Trier, 2019, Using deep neural networks on airborne laser scanning data: Results from a case study of semi-automatic mapping of archaeological topography on Arran, Scotland, Archaeol. Prospect., 26, 165, 10.1002/arp.1731 · DOI
  26. Agapiou, A., Vionis, A., and Papantoniou, G. (2021). Detection of Archaeological Surface Ceramics Using Deep Learning Image-Based Methods and Very High-Resolution UAV Imageries. Land, 10. · DOI
  27. Altaweel, M., Khelifi, A., Li, Z., Squitieri, A., Basmaji, T., and Ghazal, M. (2022). Automated Archaeological Feature Detection Using Deep Learning on Optical UAV Imagery: Preliminary Results. Remote Sens., 14. · DOI
  28. Bickler, 2018, Machine Learning Identification and Classification of Historic Ceramics, Archaeol. New Zealand Res. Gate, 61, 20
  29. Bickler, 2018, Prospects for Machine Learning for Shell Midden Analysis, Archaeol. N. Z. Res. Gate, 61, 48
  30. Lambers, 2019, Learning to Look at LiDAR: The Use of R-CNN in the Automated Detection of Archaeological Objects in LiDAR Data from the Netherlands, J. Comput. Appl. Archaeol., 2, 31
  31. Reese, 2021, Deep learning artificial neural networks for non-destructive archaeological site dating, J. Archaeol. Sci., 132, 105413, 10.1016/j.jas.2021.105413 · DOI
  32. Bonhage, 2021, A modified Mask region-based convolutional neural network approach for the automated detection of archaeological sites on high-resolution light detection and ranging-derived digital elevation models in the North German Lowland, Archaeol. Prospect., 28, 177, 10.1002/arp.1806 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Pawlowicz, 2021, Applications of deep learning to decorated ceramic typology and classification: A case study using Tusayan White Ware from Northeast Arizona, J. Archaeol. Sci., 130, 105375, 10.1016/j.jas.2021.105375 · DOI
  34. Davis, 2020, Defining what we study: The contribution of machine automation in archaeological research, Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit., 18, e00152
  35. Olivier, 2021, Implementing State-of-the-Art Deep Learning Approaches for Archaeological Object Detection in Remotely- Sensed Data: The Results of Cross-Domain Collaboration, J. Comput. Appl. Archaeol., 4, 274
  36. Richards-Rissettoa, F., Newton, D., and Al Zadjalic, A. (September, January 28). A 3D point cloud Deep Learning approach using Lidar to identify ancient Maya archaeological sites. Proceedings of the 28th CIPA Symposium “Great Learning & Digital Emotion”, Beijing, China.
  37. Berganzo-Besga, I., Orengo, H.A., Lumbreras, F., Carrero-Pazos, M., Fonte, J., and Vilas-Estévez, B. (2021). Hybrid MSRM-Based Deep Learning and MultitemporalSentinel 2-Based Machine Learning Algorithm Detects Near 10k Archaeological Tumuli in North-Western Iberia. Remote Sens., 13. · DOI
  38. Verschoof-van der Vaart, W.B., Lambers, K., Kowalczyk, W., and Bourgeois, Q.P. (2020). Combining Deep Learning and Location-Based Ranking for Large-Scale Archaeological Prospection of LiDAR Data from The Netherlands. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf., 9. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Trier, 2021, Automated mapping of cultural heritage in Norway from airborne lidar data using faster R-CNN, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 95, 102241
  40. Somrak, M., Sašo Džeroski, S., and Kokalj, Z. (2020). Learning to Classify Structures in ALS-Derived Visualizations of Ancient Maya Settlements with CNN. Remote Sens., 12. · DOI
  41. Maxwell, A.E., Pourmohammadi, P., and Poyner, J.D. (2020). Mapping the Topographic Features of Mining-Related Valley Fills Using Mask R-CNN Deep Learning and Digital Elevation Data. Remote Sens., 12. · DOI
  42. Martin-Abadal, M., Piñar-Molina, M., Martorell-Torres, A., Oliver-Codina, G., and Gonzalez-Cid, Y. (2021). Underwater Pipe and Valve 3D Recognition Using Deep Learning Segmentation. J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 9. · DOI
  43. Ball, 2017, Comprehensive survey of deep learning in remote sensing: Theories, tools, and challenges for the community, J. Appl. Remote Sens., 11, 1, 10.1117/1.JRS.11.042609 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Fu, 2018, Using convolutional neural network to identify irregular segmentation objects from very high-resolution remote sensing imagery, J. Appl. Remote Sens., 12, 1, 10.1117/1.JRS.12.025010 · DOI
  45. Guyot, A., Hubert-Moy, L., and Lorho, T. (2018). Detecting neolithic burial mounds from lidar derived elevation data using a multi-scale approach and machine learning techniques. Remote Sens., 10. · DOI
  46. Simonyan, K., and Zisserman, A. (2014). Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv.
  47. Zhang, 2016, Deep learning for remote sensing data: A technical tutorial on the state of the art, IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Mag., 4, 22, 10.1109/MGRS.2016.2540798 · DOI
  48. Organista, 2020, Artificial intelligence provides greater accuracy in the classification of modern and ancient bone surface modifications, Sci. Rep., 10, 18862, 10.1038/s41598-020-75994-7 · DOI
  49. Caspari, 2019, Convolutional Neural Networks for Archaeological Site Detection–Finding “Princely” Tombs, J. Archaeol. Sci., 110, 104998, 10.1016/j.jas.2019.104998 · DOI
  50. Jamil, 2022, A Review on Deep Learning Application for Detection of Archaeological Structures, J. Adv. Res. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 26, 7, 10.37934/araset.26.1.714 · DOI
  51. Breiman, 2001, Random Forests, Mach. Learn., 45, 5, 10.1023/A:1010933404324 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Kleinbaum, D.G., and Klein, M. (2010). Logistic Regression, Springer. Statistics for Biology and Health. · DOI
  53. Suthaharan, S. (2016). Machine Learning Models and Algorithms for Big Data Classification, Springer. · DOI
  54. Dang, 2018, Image classification based on quantum K-Nearest-Neighbor algorithm, Quantum Inf. Process., 17, 239, 10.1007/s11128-018-2004-9 · DOI
  55. Richards, J.A. (2022). Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis, Springer. eBook. · DOI
  56. Sun, 2011, Classification of imbalanced data: A review, Int. J. Pattern Recognit. Artif. Intell., 23, 687, 10.1142/S0218001409007326 · DOI
  57. Congalton, 1983, Assessing Landsat classification accuracy using discrete multivariate analysis statistical techniques, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens., 49, 1671
  58. Fitzgerald, 1994, Assessing the classification accuracy of multisource remote sensing data, Remote Sens. Environ., 47, 362, 10.1016/0034-4257(94)90103-1 · DOI
  59. Foody, 2020, Explaining the unsuitability of the kappa coefficient in the assessment and comparison of the accuracy of thematic maps obtained by image classification, Remote Sens. Environ., 239, 111630, 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111630 · DOI
  60. Joshi, M.V., Kumar, V., and Agarwal, R.C. (December, January 29). Evaluating boosting algorithms to classify rare classes: Comparison and improvements. Proceedings of the First IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM’01), San Jose, CA, USA.
  61. Weiss, 2004, Mining with rarity: A unifying framework, SIGKDD Explorations, ACM SIGKDD Explor. Newsl., 6, 7, 10.1145/1007730.1007734 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Prati, R.C., and Batista, G.E.A.P.A. (2004, January 26–30). Class imbalances versus class overlapping: An analysis of a learning system behavior. Proceedings of the Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (MICAI), Mexico City, Mexico. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 19

Metadata

Authors
Argyrou, A., Agapiou, A., Papakonstantinou, A., & Alexakis, D. D.
Venue
Drones
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-09-13
Volume
7
Issue
9
Pages
578
ISSN
2504-446X
DOI
10.3390/drones7090578
Cited by
19
References
1
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
  • European Union’s Horizon Europe Framework Programme (HORIZON-WIDERA-2021-ACCESS-03, Twinning Call) (101079377, 10050486)
  • UKRI (101079377, 10050486)
  • ENSURE project (innovative survey techniques for the detection of surface and sub-surface archaeological remains), a Cyprus University of Technology internal funding (101079377, 10050486)

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