A Comparison of Supervised Classification Methods for the Prediction of Substrate Type Using Multibeam Acoustic and Legacy Grain-Size Data

Abstract

Detailed seabed substrate maps are increasingly in demand for effective planning and management of marine ecosystems and resources. It has become common to use remotely sensed multibeam echosounder data in the form of bathymetry and acoustic backscatter in conjunction with ground-truth sampling data to inform the mapping of seabed substrates. Whilst, until recently, such data sets have typically been classified by expert interpretation, it is now obvious that more objective, faster and repeatable methods of seabed classification are required. This study compares the performances of a range of supervised classification techniques for predicting substrate type from multibeam echosounder data. The study area is located in the North Sea, off the north-east coast of England. A total of 258 ground-truth samples were classified into four substrate classes. Multibeam bathymetry and backscatter data, and a range of secondary features derived from these datasets were used in this study. Six supervised classification techniques were tested: Classification Trees, Support Vector Machines, k-Nearest Neighbour, Neural Networks, Random Forest and Naive Bayes. Each classifier was trained multiple times using different input features, including i) the two primary features of bathymetry and backscatter, ii) a subset of the features chosen by a feature selection process and iii) all of the input features. The predictive performances of the models were validated using a separate test set of ground-truth samples. The statistical significance of model performances relative to a simple baseline model (Nearest Neighbour predictions on bathymetry and backscatter) were tested to assess the benefits of using more sophisticated approaches. The best performing models were tree based methods and Naive Bayes which achieved accuracies of around 0.8 and kappa coefficients of up to 0.5 on the test set. The models that used all input features didn't generally perform well, highlighting the need for some means of feature selection.

Spatial Distribution and Mobility Assessment of Carcinogenic Heavy Metals in Soil Profiles Using Geostatistics and Random Forest, Boruta Algorithm

“…The RF classifier is a machine learning function of the wrapper method through the Boruta algorithm [44]. The wrapper function of RF identifies relevant parameters by performing multiple runs of the provided classification factors that test the performance of different subsets of the input parameters [45]. The RF function is a suitable alternative for the analysis of soil parameters at different depths, as it can be employed without extensive parameter tuning and returns an estimate of the feature's importance (Z-score) [46].…”

Multiscale and Hierarchical Classification for Benthic Habitat Mapping

“…RF also keeps bias low via random predictor selection. RF have been shown to perform well when compared with other rule-based classification approaches, as demonstrated by Stephen and Diesing [52], who reported that tree-based methods, including RF, performed best when predicting sediment classes from acoustic and groundtruth data sets.…”

Acoustic mapping and classification of benthic habitat using unsupervised learning in artificial reef water

“…This resolution could meet the requirements of ARs management and subsequent classification. The spatial and physical gradients of seafloor, including reef topography and texture were reflected by MBES-derived variables (Hill et al, 2014;Stephens and Diesing, 2014). A suite of acoustic derived datasets was processed using ArcGIS™ for further characterization of benthic habitats.…”

“…Typical unsupervised methods consist of clustering techniques (e.g., k-means and ISODATA) that classify regularities in data sets into seabed acoustic classes (Brown and Collier, 2008;McGonigle et al, 2009). Supervised classification techniques (e.g., artificial neural networks and support vector machines) use ground-truth data to develop a predictive model (Hasan et al, 2012;Huang et al, 2014;Stephens and Diesing, 2014). The main difference between the two classification methods is whether there are enough training samples.…”