Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 391

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

Comparing Machine Learning Classifiers for Object-Based Land Cover Classification Using Very High Resolution Imagery

Open access
Qian, Yuguo, Zhou, Weiqi, Yan, Jingli, Li, Weifeng, Han, Lijian·2014·Remote Sensing

Abstract

This study evaluates and compares the performance of four machine learning classifiers—support vector machine (SVM), normal Bayes (NB), classification and regression tree (CART) and K nearest neighbor (KNN)—to classify very high resolution images, using an object-based classification procedure. In particular, we investigated how tuning parameters affect the classification accuracy with different training sample sizes. We found that: (1) SVM and NB were superior to CART and KNN, and both could achieve high classification accuracy (>90%); (2) the setting of tuning parameters greatly affected classification accuracy, particularly for the most commonly-used SVM classifier; the optimal values of tuning parameters might vary slightly with the size of training samples; (3) the size of training sample also greatly affected the classification accuracy, when the size of training sample was less than 125. Increasing the size of training samples generally led to the increase of classification accuracies for all four classifiers. In addition, NB and KNN were more sensitive to the sample sizes. This research provides insights into the selection of classifiers and the size of training samples. It also highlights the importance of the appropriate setting of tuning parameters for different machine learning classifiers and provides useful information for optimizing these parameters.

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/rs70100153

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

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 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Pu, 2011, Object-based urban detailed land cover classification with high spatial resolution ikonos imagery, Int. J. Remote Sens., 32, 3285, 10.1080/01431161003745657 · DOI
  2. Malinverni, 2011, Hybrid object-based approach for land use/land cover mapping using high spatial resolution imagery, Int. J. Geogr. Infor. Sci., 25, 1025, 10.1080/13658816.2011.566569 · DOI
  3. Zhang, 2010, Object-oriented method for urban vegetation mapping using ikonos imagery, Int. J. Remote Sens., 31, 177, 10.1080/01431160902882603 · DOI
  4. Myint, 2011, Per-pixel vs. object-based classification of urban land cover extraction using high spatial resolution imagery, Remote Sens. Environ., 115, 1145, 10.1016/j.rse.2010.12.017 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Duro, 2012, A comparison of pixel-based and object-based image analysis with selected machine learning algorithms for the classification of agricultural landscapes using SPOT-5 HRG imagery, Remote Sens. Environ., 118, 259, 10.1016/j.rse.2011.11.020 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Blaschke, 2010, Object based image analysis for remote sensing, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 65, 2, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2009.06.004 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Zhou, 2014, Quantifying spatial heterogeneity in urban landscapes: Integrating visual interpretation and object-based classification, Remote Sens., 6, 3369, 10.3390/rs6043369 · DOI
  8. Zhou, 2008, An object-oriented approach for analysing and characterizing urban landscape at the parcel level, Int. J. Remote Sens., 29, 3119, 10.1080/01431160701469065 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Laliberte, A.S., Koppa, J., Fredrickson, E.L., and Rango, A. (August, January 31). Comparison of nearest neighbor and rule-based decision tree classification in an object-oriented environment. Proceedings of the IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Denver, CO, USA.
  10. Laliberte, 2004, Object-oriented image analysis for mapping shrub encroachment from 1937 to 2003 in Southern New Mexico, Remote Sens. Environ., 93, 198, 10.1016/j.rse.2004.07.011 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Pal, 2005, Random forest classifier for remote sensing classification, Int. J. Remote Sens., 26, 217, 10.1080/01431160412331269698 · DOI · Paper page
  12. McInerney, 2009, A comparative analysis of kNN and decision tree methods for the irish national forest inventory, Int. J. Remote Sens., 30, 4937, 10.1080/01431160903022936 · DOI
  13. Song, 2012, Comparison of artificial neural networks and support vector machine classifiers for land cover classification in northern China using a SPOT-5 HRG image, Int. J. Remote Sens., 33, 3301, 10.1080/01431161.2011.568531 · DOI
  14. Huang, 2002, An assessment of support vector machines for land cover classification, Int. J. Remote Sens., 23, 725, 10.1080/01431160110040323 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Buddhiraju, K.M., and Rizvi, I.A. (2010, January 25–30). Comparison of CBF, ANN and SVM classifiers for object based classification of high resolution satellite images. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), Honolulu, HI, USA. · DOI
  16. Wieland, 2014, Performance evaluation of machine learning algorithms for urban pattern recognition from multi-spectral satellite images, Remote Sens., 6, 2912, 10.3390/rs6042912 · DOI
  17. Shiraishi, 2014, Comparative assessment of supervised classifiers for land use–land cover classification in a tropical region using time-series palsar mosaic data, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens., 7, 1186, 10.1109/JSTARS.2014.2313572 · DOI
  18. Vanniel, 2005, On the relationship between training sample size and data dimensionality: Monte carlo analysis of broadband multi-temporal classification, Remote Sens. Environ., 98, 468, 10.1016/j.rse.2005.08.011 · DOI
  19. Foody, 2006, Training set size requirements for the classification of a specific class, Remote Sens. Environ., 104, 1, 10.1016/j.rse.2006.03.004 · DOI
  20. Yan, 2006, Comparison of pixel-based and object-oriented image classification approaches—A case study in a coal fire area, Wuda, Inner Mongolia, China, Int. J. Remote Sens., 27, 4039, 10.1080/01431160600702632 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Zhou, 2009, Development of an object-based framework for classifying and inventorying human-dominated forest ecosystems, Int. J. Remote Sens., 30, 6343, 10.1080/01431160902849503 · DOI
  22. Kavzoglu, 2009, A kernel functions analysis for support vector machines for land cover classification, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 11, 352
  23. Burges, 1998, A tutorial on support vector machines for pattern recognition, Data Min. Knowl. Discov., 2, 121, 10.1023/A:1009715923555 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Lin, 2007, Parameter selection in SVM with RBF kernel function, J. Zhejiang Univ. Technol., 35, 163
  25. Erener, 2013, Classification method, spectral diversity, band combination and accuracy assessment evaluation for urban feature detection, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 21, 397

Cited by

See all 391

Metadata

Authors
Qian, Y., Zhou, W., Yan, J., Li, W., & Han, L.
Venue
Remote Sensing
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2014-12-24
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
153-168
ISSN
2072-4292 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2084668217
Cited by
391
References
1
FWCI
20.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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 Machine Learning Classifiers for Object-Based Land Cover Classification Using Very High Resolution Imagery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/rs70100153
The paper
Qian, Y., Zhou, W., Yan, J., Li, W., & Han, L. (2014). Comparing Machine Learning Classifiers for Object-Based Land Cover Classification Using Very High Resolution Imagery. Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs70100153

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.