## 4 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Training/Testing (70:30)**} \\ \hline
**Classes** & \(Accu_{y}\) & \(Prec_{n}\) & \(Reca_{l}\) & \(F_{score}\) & **AUC Score** & **MCC** \\ \hline
**Training Phase** & & & & & & \\ Grassland & 96.37 & 91.77 & 96.36 & 94.01 & 96.37 & 91.47 \\ Agriculture & 96.64 & 92.74 & 87.79 & 90.20 & 93.16 & 88.22 \\ Barren land & 98.12 & 96.67 & 94.16 & 95.39 & 96.65 & 94.23 \\ Water & 97.85 & 96.65 & 96.65 & 96.65 & 97.53 & 95.07 \\ \hline
**Average** & **97.24** & **94.46** & **93.74** & **94.06** & **95.93** & **92.25** \\ \hline
**Testing Phase** & & & & & & \\ Grassland & 98.44 & 96.15 & 99.01 & 97.56 & 98.59 & 96.43 \\ Agriculture & 99.38 & 100.00 & 96.15 & 98.04 & 98.08 & 97.69 \\ Barren land & 98.44 & 98.67 & 94.87 & 96.73 & 97.23 & 95.74 \\ Water & 98.75 & 96.70 & 98.88 & 97.78 & 98.79 & 96.92 \\ \hline
**Average** & **98.75** & **97.88** & **97.23** & **97.53** & **98.17** & **96.70** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Classification outcome of TSADL-LULCCD approach on 70:30 of TR/TS databases. Figure 10: Average outcome of TSADL-LULCCD approach on 70:30 of TR/TS databases. \(AUC_{score}\) of 98.08%, and MCC of 97.69%. Additionally, the TSADL-LULCCD technique has categorized barren land samples with \(accu_{y}\) of 98.44%, \(prec_{n}\) of 98.67%, \(rec_{l}\) of 94.87%, \(F_{score}\) of 96.73%, \(AUC_{score}\) of 97.23%, and MCC of 95.74%. The TACC and VACC of the TSADL-LULCCD approach are investigated on 70:30 of TR/TS databases in Figure 11. The figure shows the TSADL-LULCCD technique has shown improved performance with increased values of TACC and VACC. Notably, the TSADL-LULCCD approach has achieved maximum TACC outcomes. The TLS and VLS of the TSADL-LULCCD technique are tested on 70:30 of TR/TS databases in Figure 12. The figure designated the TSADL-LULCCD method has revealed better performance with the least values of TLS and VLS. Seemingly, the TSADL-LULCCD approach has reduced VLS outcomes. A clear precision-recall inspection of the TSADL-LULCCD method on 70:30 TR/TS databases is seen in Figure 13. The outcomes show the TSADL-LULCCD approach has enhanced values of precision-recall values. Next, a detailed ROC study of the TSADL-LULCCD method on 70:30 TR/TS databases is shown in Figure 14. The outcomes exhibit the TSADL-LULCCD technique has shown its ability to classify different classes. Finally, an extended comparative study of the TSADL-LULCCD model with recent models is given in Table 4 [24]. Figure 15 represents \(accu_{y}\) examination of the TSADL-LULCCD model with recent models. The results signified that the DT and LR models had reported worse outcomes with minimum \(accu_{y}\) of 91.18% and 92.03%, respectively. Followed by the SGD and ExGBT models, which have certainly accomplished closer \(accu_{y}\) of 93.11% and 93.13%, respectively. Meanwhile, the GA and DL models have revealed reasonable outcomes with \(accu_{y}\) of 95.24% and 97.88%, respectively. However, the TSADL-LULCCD model has exhibited its improved performance with \(accu_{y}\) of 98.75%. Figure 11: TACC and VACC analysis of TSADL-LULCCD approach on 70:30 of TR/TS database. Evaluation of our TSADL with LULCCD gives against SGD and GA algorithms insights to learn the time taken to analyze the characteristics of satellite images and to classify the nature of lands (Tables 5 and 6). Figure 12: TLS and VLS analysis of TSADL-LULCCD approach on 70:30 of TR/TS databases. Figure 13: Precision-recall analysis of TSADL-LULCCD approach on 70:30 of TR/TS. Figure 14: ROC analysis of TSADL-LULCCD approach on 70:30 of TR/TS databases. Figure 10:0 \(Accu_{y}\) analysis of TSADL-LULCCD approach with other approaches. Figure 16 signifies \(prec_{n}\) inspection of the TsADL-LULCCD method with recent approaches. The results signified that the DT and LR methods had reported worse outcomes with minimum \(prec_{n}\) of 91.92% and 93.41%, correspondingly. Then, the SGD and GA models have exhibited certainly closer \(prec_{n}\) of 94.06% and 95.75% correspondingly.