2020
DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-6353-9_15
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance Evaluation of RF and SVM for Sugarcane Classification Using Sentinel-2 NDVI Time-Series

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, we can conclude that in terms of accuracy assessment, the RF classifier performs slighter better than SVM. This result also agrees with other studies [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, we can conclude that in terms of accuracy assessment, the RF classifier performs slighter better than SVM. This result also agrees with other studies [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
“…Recognizing land uses by land administration is a major funding source such as tax, stamp duty on property transfers, etc. [ 43 ]. Derived irrigated crop types maps can be utilized by regional land administration offices to monitor the spatial extent of crops location and its monitoring as well as modeling and predicting crop yields and production by different models.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent years bring amelioration in deep learning (DL) methods (deep neural networks), especially convolutional neural networks (CNNs). CNN gained popularity because of achieving state-of-the-art results in many computer vision tasks such as image classification [2][3][4], scene recognition [5], image annotation and captioning [6,7], handwritten digits classification, object detection [8], and semantic segmentation [9]. A review has been presented by Singh [10] on biotic and abiotic stress detection using CNN models such as AlexNet, ZFNet, GoogLeNet, VGGNet, ExceptionNet, InceptionNet, and ResNet in various fruits and vegetables.…”
Section: Literature Surveymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The classification methods of support vector machine (SVM), Maximum Likelihood Classification (MLC), random forest (RF), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), and Decision Tree (DT) have been demonstrated to effectively distinguish various plant types in remote sensing data [8,9]. Virnodkar et al [10] employed the random forest and support vector machine classification methods to categorize seven distinct classes, including sugarcane, maize, bare land, and buildings. This classification was based on the analysis of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and Sentinel-2 remotely sensed data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The findings indicated that the support vector machine achieved a producer accuracy of 81.68%, while the random forest algorithm achieved a higher producer accuracy of 96.58%. Previous research has demonstrated that random forests exhibit strong performance in the classification of crops [10,[14][15][16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%