MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2884197231 · doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.06.021

International benchmarking of terrestrial laser scanning approaches for forest inventories

2018· article· en· W2884197231 sur OpenAlexafffund
Xinlian Liang, Juha Hyyppä, Harri Kaartinen, Matti Lehtomäki, Jiri Pyörälä, Norbert Pfeifer, Markus Holopainen, Gábor Brolly, Francesco Pirotti, Jan Hackenberg, Hyun‐Woo Jo, Masato Katoh, Luxia Liu, Martin Mokroš, Jules Morel, Jose Alejandro Poveda Lopez, Jinhu Wang, Zhouxin Xi, Guang Zheng, Ville Kankare, Ville Luoma, Xiaowei Yu, Liang Chen, Mikko Vastaranta

Notice bibliographique

RevueISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Lethbridge
Organismes subventionnairesSeventh Framework ProgrammeSuomalainen TiedeakatemiaEuropean CommissionUniversity of Lethbridge
Mots-clésBenchmarkingComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Context (archaeology)Strengths and weaknessesTree (set theory)Data miningGeospatial analysisForest inventoryData scienceForest managementRemote sensingGeographyForestryMathematicsCartographyBusiness

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The last two decades have witnessed increasing awareness of the potential of terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) in forest applications in both public and commercial sectors, along with tremendous research efforts and progress. It is time to inspect the achievements of and the remaining barriers to TLS-based forest investigations, so further research and application are clearly orientated in operational uses of TLS. In such context, the international TLS benchmarking project was launched in 2014 by the European Spatial Data Research Organization and coordinated by the Finnish Geospatial Research Institute. The main objectives of this benchmarking study are to evaluate the potential of applying TLS in characterizing forests, to clarify the strengths and the weaknesses of TLS as a measure of forest digitization, and to reveal the capability of recent algorithms for tree-attribute extraction. The project is designed to benchmark the TLS algorithms by processing identical TLS datasets for a standardized set of forest attribute criteria and by evaluating the results through a common procedure respecting reliable references. Benchmarking results reflect large variances in estimating accuracies, which were unveiled through the 18 compared algorithms and through the evaluation framework, i.e., forest complexity categories, TLS data acquisition approaches, tree attributes and evaluation procedures. The evaluation framework includes three new criteria proposed in this benchmarking and the algorithm performances are investigated through combining two or more criteria (e.g., the accuracy of the individual tree attributes are inspected in conjunction with plot-level completeness) in order to reveal algorithms’ overall performance. The results also reveal some best available forest attribute estimates at this time, which clarify the status quo of TLS-based forest investigations. Some results are well expected, while some are new, e.g., the variances of estimating accuracies between single-/multi-scan, the principle of the algorithm designs and the possibility of a computer outperforming human operation. With single-scan data, i.e., one hemispherical scan per plot, most of the recent algorithms are capable of achieving stem detection with approximately 75% completeness and 90% correctness in the easy forest stands (easy plots: 600 stems/ha, 20 cm mean DBH). The detection rate decreases when the stem density increases and the average DBH decreases, i.e., 60% completeness with 90% correctness (medium plots: 1000 stem/ha, 15 cm mean DBH) and 30% completeness with 90% correctness (difficult plots: 2000 stems/ha, 10 cm mean DBH). The application of the multi-scan approach, i.e., five scans per plot at the center and four quadrant angles, is more effective in complex stands, increasing the completeness to approximately 90% for medium plots and to approximately 70% for difficult plots, with almost 100% correctness. The results of this benchmarking also show that the TLS-based approaches can provide the estimates of the DBH and the stem curve at a 1–2 cm accuracy that are close to what is required in practical applications, e.g., national forest inventories (NFIs). In terms of algorithm development, a high level of automation is a commonly shared standard, but a bottleneck occurs at stem detection and tree height estimation, especially in multilayer and dense forest stands. The greatest challenge is that even with the multi-scan approach, it is still hard to completely and accurately record stems of all trees in a plot due to the occlusion effects of the trees and bushes in forests. Future development must address the redundant yet incomplete point clouds of forest sample plots and recognize trees more accurately and efficiently. It is worth noting that TLS currently provides the best quality terrestrial point clouds in comparison with all other technologies, meaning that all the benchmarks labeled in this paper can also serve as a reference for other terrestrial point clouds sources.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,025
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,025
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,132

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0250,021
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0120,012
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0030,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,267
Écart entre enseignants0,237 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations463
Publié2018
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote SensingMême sujetRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsTravaux en français237 207