Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Algorithms in Automatic Identification and Extraction of Water Boundaries

被引:21
作者
Li, Aimin [1 ]
Fan, Meng [2 ]
Qin, Guangduo [2 ]
Xu, Youcheng [2 ]
Wang, Hailong [2 ]
机构
[1] Zhengzhou Univ, Sch Geosci & Technol, Zhengzhou 450001, Peoples R China
[2] Zhengzhou Univ, Sch Water Conservancy Engn, Zhengzhou 450001, Peoples R China
来源
APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL | 2021年 / 11卷 / 21期
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
water extraction; modified normalized difference water index (MNDWI); remote sensing; machine learning algorithm; LOGISTIC-REGRESSION; FEATURE-SELECTION; INDEX NDWI; CLASSIFICATION; SENTINEL-2; IMAGERY; BODY; MANAGEMENT; LANDSAT-8; FEATURES;
D O I
10.3390/app112110062
中图分类号
O6 [化学];
学科分类号
0703 ;
摘要
Monitoring open water bodies accurately is important for assessing the role of ecosystem services in the context of human survival and climate change. There are many methods available for water body extraction based on remote sensing images, such as the normalized difference water index (NDWI), modified NDWI (MNDWI), and machine learning algorithms. Based on Landsat-8 remote sensing images, this study focuses on the effects of six machine learning algorithms and three threshold methods used to extract water bodies, evaluates the transfer performance of models applied to remote sensing images in different periods, and compares the differences among these models. The results are as follows. (1) Various algorithms require different numbers of samples to reach their optimal consequence. The logistic regression algorithm requires a minimum of 110 samples. As the number of samples increases, the order of the optimal model is support vector machine, neural network, random forest, decision tree, and XGBoost. (2) The accuracy evaluation performance of each machine learning on the test set cannot represent the local area performance. (3) When these models are directly applied to remote sensing images in different periods, the AUC indicators of each machine learning algorithm for three regions all show a significant decline, with a decrease range of 0.33-66.52%, and the differences among the different algorithm performances in the three areas are obvious. Generally, the decision tree algorithm has good transfer performance among the machine learning algorithms with area under curve (AUC) indexes of 0.790, 0.518, and 0.697 in the three areas, respectively, and the average value is 0.668. The Otsu threshold algorithm is the optimal among threshold methods, with AUC indexes of 0.970, 0.617, and 0.908 in the three regions respectively and an average AUC of 0.832.
引用
收藏
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
[31]   Comparative investigation of machine learning algorithms for detection of epileptic seizures [J].
Sharma, Akash ;
Kumar, Neeraj ;
Kumar, Ayush ;
Dikshit, Karan ;
Tharani, Kusum ;
Singh, Bharat .
INTELLIGENT DECISION TECHNOLOGIES-NETHERLANDS, 2021, 15 (02) :269-279
[32]   Identification of Lithology Using Sentinel-2A Through an Ensemble of Machine Learning Algorithms [J].
Bachri, Imane ;
Hakdaoui, Mustapha ;
Raji, Mohammed ;
Benbouziane, Abdelmajid ;
Mhamdi, Hicham Si .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED GEOSPATIAL RESEARCH, 2022, 13 (01)
[33]   Optimizing Land Use Identification With Social Networks: Comparative Evaluation of Machine Learning Algorithms [J].
Aljeri, Munairah .
IEEE ACCESS, 2023, 11 :117067-117077
[34]   Evaluation of Machine Learning Algorithms for Surface Water Extraction in a Landsat 8 Scene of Nepal [J].
Acharya, Tri Dev ;
Subedi, Anoj ;
Lee, Dong Ha .
SENSORS, 2019, 19 (12)
[35]   Automatic Feature Extraction and Selection For Machine Learning Based Intrusion Detection [J].
Liu, Jinjie ;
Chung, Sun Sunnie .
2019 IEEE SMARTWORLD, UBIQUITOUS INTELLIGENCE & COMPUTING, ADVANCED & TRUSTED COMPUTING, SCALABLE COMPUTING & COMMUNICATIONS, CLOUD & BIG DATA COMPUTING, INTERNET OF PEOPLE AND SMART CITY INNOVATION (SMARTWORLD/SCALCOM/UIC/ATC/CBDCOM/IOP/SCI 2019), 2019, :1400-1405
[36]   Evaluation of Machine Learning Algorithms for Automatic Modulation Recognition [J].
Hazar, Muhammed Abdurrahman ;
Odabasioglu, Niyazi ;
Ensari, Tolga ;
Kavurucu, Yusuf .
NEURAL INFORMATION PROCESSING, PT I, 2015, 9489 :208-215
[37]   Comparison of machine learning algorithms and feature extraction techniques for the automatic detection of surface EMG activation timing [J].
Gallon, Valentina Mejia ;
Velez, Stirley Madrid ;
Ramirez, Juan ;
Bolanos, Freddy .
BIOMEDICAL SIGNAL PROCESSING AND CONTROL, 2024, 94
[38]   A Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Algorithms for Classification of Diabetes Utilizing Confusion Matrix Analysis [J].
Mijwil, Maad M. ;
Aljanabi, Mohammad .
BAGHDAD SCIENCE JOURNAL, 2024, 21 (05) :1712-1728
[39]   Automatic Classification of Vulnerabilities using Deep Learning and Machine Learning Algorithms [J].
Ramesh, Vishnu ;
Abraham, Sara ;
Vinod, P. ;
Mohamed, Isham ;
Visaggio, Corrado A. ;
Laudanna, Sonia .
2021 INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON NEURAL NETWORKS (IJCNN), 2021,
[40]   Machine Learning Algorithms for Early Prediction of MultipleSclerosis Progression: A Comparative Study [J].
Haouam, Kamel-Dine ;
Benmalek, Mourad .
ADVANCES IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MACHINE LEARNING, 2024, 4 (01) :2027-2051