Analysis on the Use of Multiple Returns LiDAR Data for the Estimation of Tree Stems Volume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Small footprint Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data have been shown to be a very accurate technology to predict stem volume. In particular, most recent sensors are able to acquire multiple return (more than 2) data at very high hit density, allowing one to have detailed characterization of the canopy. In this paper, we utilize very high density ( >8 hits per m <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> ) LiDAR data acquired over a forest stand in Italy. Our approach was as follows: Individual trees were first extracted from the LiDAR data and a series of attributes from both the first, and non-first (multiple), hits associated with each crown were then extracted. These variables were then correlated with ground truth individual estimates of stem volume. Our results indicate that: (i) non-first returns are informative for the estimation of stem volume (in particular the second return); (ii) some attributes (e.g., <i xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">maximum at the power of n</i> ) better emphasize the information content of returns different from the first respect to other metrics (e.g., <i xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">minimum</i> , <i xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">mean</i> ); and (iii) the combined use of variables belonging to different returns slightly increases the overall model accuracy. Moreover, we found that the best model for stem volume estimation (adj - R <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> = 0.77, P < 0.0001, SE = 0.06) comprised four variables belonging to three returns (first, second, and third). The results of this analysis are important as they underline the effectiveness of the use of multiple return LiDAR data, underling the connection between LiDAR hits different from the first and tree structure and characteristics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".