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

被引:26
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
[41]   Comparative Study of Several Machine Learning Algorithms for Classification of Unifloral Honeys [J].
Mateo, Fernando ;
Tarazona, Andrea ;
Maria Mateo, Eva .
FOODS, 2021, 10 (07)
[42]   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
[43]   Automatic detection of rock boundaries using a hybrid recurrence quantification analysis and machine learning techniques [J].
Anvari, Keyumars ;
Mousavi, Amin ;
Sayadi, Ahmad Reza ;
Sellers, Ewan ;
Salmi, Ebrahim F. .
BULLETIN OF ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 2022, 81 (10)
[44]   Comparative Analysis on the Prediction of Road Accident Severity Using Machine Learning Algorithms [J].
Kushwaha, Manoj ;
Abirami, M. S. .
MICRO-ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATION ENGINEERING, ICMETE 2021, 2022, 373 :269-280
[45]   DrugMiner: comparative analysis of machine learning algorithms for prediction of potential druggable proteins [J].
Jamali, Ali Akbar ;
Ferdousi, Reza ;
Razzaghi, Saeed ;
Li, Jiuyong ;
Safdari, Reza ;
Ebrahimie, Esmaeil .
DRUG DISCOVERY TODAY, 2016, 21 (05) :718-724
[46]   Comparative Analysis of Supervised Machine and Deep Learning Algorithms for Kyphosis Disease Detection [J].
Chauhan, Alok Singh ;
Lilhore, Umesh Kumar ;
Gupta, Amit Kumar ;
Manoharan, Poongodi ;
Garg, Ruchi Rani ;
Hajjej, Fahima ;
Keshta, Ismail ;
Raahemifar, Kaamran .
APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL, 2023, 13 (08)
[47]   Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning-Based Algorithms for Detection of Anomalies in IIoT [J].
Naik, Bhupal D. S. ;
Dondeti, Venkatesulu ;
Balakrishna, Sivadi .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATION RETRIEVAL RESEARCH, 2022, 12 (01)
[48]   Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Algorithms along with Classifiers for Network Intrusion Detection [J].
Choudhury, Sumouli ;
Bhowal, Anirban .
2015 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SMART TECHNOLOGIES AND MANAGEMENT FOR COMPUTING, COMMUNICATION, CONTROLS, ENERGY AND MATERIALS (ICSTM), 2015, :89-95
[49]   Performance Analysis of Machine Learning Algorithms for Thyroid Disease [J].
Hafiz Abbad Ur Rehman ;
Chyi-Yeu Lin ;
Zohaib Mushtaq ;
Shun-Feng Su .
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 2021, 46 :9437-9449
[50]   Machine learning algorithms for social media analysis: A survey [J].
Balaji, T. K. ;
Annavarapu, Chandra Sekhara Rao ;
Bablani, Annushree .
COMPUTER SCIENCE REVIEW, 2021, 40