A comprehensive review of machine learning and deep learning applications in remote sensing for lithological mapping

IF 2.1 4区 地球科学
Ilyes Salhi, Mourad El Koundi, Mohamed Aymen Ben Khalifa, Wafa Talhaoui, Abdessalem El Ghali
{"title":"A comprehensive review of machine learning and deep learning applications in remote sensing for lithological mapping","authors":"Ilyes Salhi,&nbsp;Mourad El Koundi,&nbsp;Mohamed Aymen Ben Khalifa,&nbsp;Wafa Talhaoui,&nbsp;Abdessalem El Ghali","doi":"10.1007/s11600-026-02024-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Lithological mapping is critical for resource management, environmental assessment, and geohazard mitigation in regions where climate change and rapid land use require robust geoscientific tools. Integrating remote sensing (RS) with machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) provides objective and reproducible alternatives to traditional field surveys. This quantitative review synthesizes 444 independent case studies across 154 peer-reviewed publications to evaluate algorithm performance across diverse RS and geological settings. Kruskal–Wallis testing confirms statistically significant performance disparities among classification algorithms and architectures (H = 48.02, <i>p </i>&lt; 0.001, ε<sup>2 </sup>= 0.11). Categorical meta-regression also reveals that geological context and sensor configurations significantly control the performance. For single-source RS data, conventional ML algorithms yield stable baseline metrics (mean overall accuracy (OA) ≈ 0.84—0.85). Conversely, hybrid DL architectures excel in high-dimensional settings, with multisource fusion (particularly multispectral + geophysical + geochemical data) achieving highest predictive accuracy (mean OA ≈ 0.90—0.95, kappa &gt; 0.90). Categorical analyses demonstrate that mixed sedimentary–igneous–metamorphic contexts impose statistically significant accuracy penalties (<i>p </i>&lt; 0.01) compared to igneous settings, though DL models better maintain accuracy in sedimentary settings (mean OA &gt; 0.86, kappa &gt; 0.81). Environmental constraints remain pervasive, with dense vegetation causing accuracy drops up to 5% in OA and 8% in kappa across all models. Egger’s regression (<i>p </i>= 0.6) confirms the absence of severe publication bias despite high methodological heterogeneity. Future research should prioritize label-efficient techniques, context-aware multimodal integration, lightweight edge deployment, and standardized multisensor benchmarks.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":6988,"journal":{"name":"Acta Geophysica","volume":"74 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Geophysica","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11600-026-02024-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Lithological mapping is critical for resource management, environmental assessment, and geohazard mitigation in regions where climate change and rapid land use require robust geoscientific tools. Integrating remote sensing (RS) with machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) provides objective and reproducible alternatives to traditional field surveys. This quantitative review synthesizes 444 independent case studies across 154 peer-reviewed publications to evaluate algorithm performance across diverse RS and geological settings. Kruskal–Wallis testing confirms statistically significant performance disparities among classification algorithms and architectures (H = 48.02, p < 0.001, ε2 = 0.11). Categorical meta-regression also reveals that geological context and sensor configurations significantly control the performance. For single-source RS data, conventional ML algorithms yield stable baseline metrics (mean overall accuracy (OA) ≈ 0.84—0.85). Conversely, hybrid DL architectures excel in high-dimensional settings, with multisource fusion (particularly multispectral + geophysical + geochemical data) achieving highest predictive accuracy (mean OA ≈ 0.90—0.95, kappa > 0.90). Categorical analyses demonstrate that mixed sedimentary–igneous–metamorphic contexts impose statistically significant accuracy penalties (p < 0.01) compared to igneous settings, though DL models better maintain accuracy in sedimentary settings (mean OA > 0.86, kappa > 0.81). Environmental constraints remain pervasive, with dense vegetation causing accuracy drops up to 5% in OA and 8% in kappa across all models. Egger’s regression (p = 0.6) confirms the absence of severe publication bias despite high methodological heterogeneity. Future research should prioritize label-efficient techniques, context-aware multimodal integration, lightweight edge deployment, and standardized multisensor benchmarks.

机器学习和深度学习在遥感岩性制图中的应用综述
在气候变化和土地快速利用需要强大的地球科学工具的地区,岩性测绘对于资源管理、环境评估和减轻地质灾害至关重要。将遥感(RS)与机器学习(ML)和深度学习(DL)相结合,为传统的实地调查提供了客观、可重复的替代方案。本定量综述综合了154篇同行评审出版物中的444个独立案例研究,以评估算法在不同RS和地质环境中的性能。Kruskal-Wallis检验证实了分类算法和架构之间具有统计学意义的性能差异(H = 48.02, p < 0.001, ε2 = 0.11)。分类元回归还揭示了地质环境和传感器配置对性能的显著控制。对于单源RS数据,传统的ML算法产生稳定的基线指标(平均总体精度(OA)≈0.84-0.85)。相反,混合深度学习架构在高维环境中表现出色,多源融合(特别是多光谱+地球物理+地球化学数据)实现了最高的预测精度(平均OA≈0.90 - 0.95,kappa > 0.90)。分类分析表明,与火成岩环境相比,混合沉积-火成岩-变质环境在统计上具有显著的准确性损失(p < 0.01),尽管DL模型在沉积环境中保持了更好的准确性(平均OA >; 0.86, kappa > 0.81)。环境限制仍然普遍存在,在所有模型中,密集的植被导致OA精度下降5%,kappa精度下降8%。Egger回归(p = 0.6)证实,尽管方法异质性很高,但没有严重的发表偏倚。未来的研究应优先考虑标签高效技术、上下文感知多模态集成、轻量级边缘部署和标准化多传感器基准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Geophysica
Acta Geophysica GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
13.00%
发文量
251
期刊介绍: Acta Geophysica is open to all kinds of manuscripts including research and review articles, short communications, comments to published papers, letters to the Editor as well as book reviews. Some of the issues are fully devoted to particular topics; we do encourage proposals for such topical issues. We accept submissions from scientists world-wide, offering high scientific and editorial standard and comprehensive treatment of the discussed topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书