How Does Sample Labeling and Distribution Affect the Accuracy and Efficiency of a Deep Learning Model for Individual Tree-Crown Detection and Delineation

Abstract

Monitoring and assessing vegetation using deep learning approaches has shown promise in forestry applications. Sample labeling to represent forest complexity is the main limitation for deep learning approaches for remote sensing vegetation classification applications, and few studies have focused on the impact of sample labeling methods on model performance and model training efficiency. This study is the first-of-its-kind that uses Mask region-based convolutional neural networks (Mask R-CNN) to evaluate the influence of sample labeling methods (including sample size and sample distribution) on individual tree-crown detection and delineation. A flight was conducted over a plantation with Fokienia hodginsii as the main tree species using a Phantom4-Multispectral (P4M) to obtain UAV imagery, and a total of 2061 manually and accurately delineated tree crowns were used for training and validating (1689) and testing (372). First, the model performance of three pre-trained backbones (ResNet-34, ResNet-50, and ResNet-101) was evaluated. Second, random deleting and clumped deleting methods were used to repeatedly delete 10% from the original sample set to reduce the training and validation set, to simulate two different sample distributions (the random sample set and the clumped sample set). Both RGB image and Multi-band images derived from UAV flights were used to evaluate model performance. Each model’s average per-epoch training time was calculated to evaluate the model training efficiency. The results showed that ResNet-50 yielded a more robust network than ResNet-34 and ResNet-101 when the same parameters were used for Mask R-CNN. The sample size determined the influence of sample labeling methods on the model performance. Random sample labeling had lower requirements for sample size compared to clumped sample labeling, and unlabeled trees in random sample labeling had no impact on model training. Additionally, the model with clumped samples provides a shorter average per-epoch training time than the model with random samples. This study demonstrates that random sample labeling can greatly reduce the requirement of sample size, and it is not necessary to accurately label each sample in the image during the sample labeling process.

Keywords

• UAV imagery
• transfer learning
• instance segmentation
• label accuracy
• sample labeling