The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Random Forest, k-Nearest Neighbor, and Support Vector Machine Classifiers for Land Cover Classification Using Sentinel-2 Imagery
Open accessAbstract
In previous classification studies, three non-parametric classifiers, Random Forest (RF), k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN), and Support Vector Machine (SVM), were reported as the foremost classifiers at producing high accuracies. However, only a few studies have compared the performances of these classifiers with different training sample sizes for the same remote sensing images, particularly the Sentinel-2 Multispectral Imager (MSI). In this study, we examined and compared the performances of the RF, kNN, and SVM classifiers for land use/cover classification using Sentinel-2 image data. An area of 30 × 30 km2 within the Red River Delta of Vietnam with six land use/cover types was classified using 14 different training sample sizes, including balanced and imbalanced, from 50 to over 1250 pixels/class. All classification results showed a high overall accuracy (OA) ranging from 90% to 95%. Among the three classifiers and 14 sub-datasets, SVM produced the highest OA with the least sensitivity to the training sample sizes, followed consecutively by RF and kNN. In relation to the sample size, all three classifiers showed a similar and high OA (over 93.85%) when the training sample size was large enough, i.e., greater than 750 pixels/class or representing an area of approximately 0.25% of the total study area. The high accuracy was achieved with both imbalanced and balanced datasets.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Global Consequences of Land Use
Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., Coe, M. T., Daily, G. C., Gibbs, H. K., et al. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1111772 · Cited by 13,272
Cited by
Wang, P., Fan, E., & Wang, P. (2021) · Pattern Recognition Letters · doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2020.07.042 · Cited by 847
Phan, T. N., Kuch, V., & Lehnert, L. W. (2020) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs12152411 · Cited by 616
Machine learning in medical applications: a review of state-of-the-art methods
Shehab, M., Abualigah, L., Shambour, Q., Abu-Hashem, M. A., Shambour, M. K. Y., Alsalibi, A. I., & Gandomi, A. H. (2022) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105458 · Cited by 542
Park, S.-J., & Lee, D.-K. (2020) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aba5b3 · Cited by 100
Detecting Lithium (Li) Mineralizations from Space: Current Research and Future Perspectives
Cardoso-Fernandes, J., Teodoro, A. C., Lima, A., Perrotta, M., & Roda-Robles, E. (2020) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app10051785 · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Thanh Noi, P., & Kappas, M.
- Venue
- Sensors
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2017-12-22
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 18
- ISSN
- 1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2776146695
- Cited by
- 1,351
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 69.69
- 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: Comparison of Random Forest, k-Nearest Neighbor, and Support Vector Machine Classifiers for Land Cover Classification Using Sentinel-2 Imagery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/s18010018
- The paper
- Thanh Noi, P., & Kappas, M. (2017). Comparison of Random Forest, k-Nearest Neighbor, and Support Vector Machine Classifiers for Land Cover Classification Using Sentinel-2 Imagery. Sensors. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18010018
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.