PIXEL VS OBJECT-BASED IMAGE CLASSIFICATION TECHNIQUES FOR LIDAR INTENSITY DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) systems are remote sensing techniques used mainly for terrain surface modelling. LiDAR sensors record the distance between the sensor and the targets (range data) with a capability to record the strength of the backscatter energy reflected from the targets (intensity data). The LiDAR sensors use the near-infrared spectrum range which provides high separability in the reflected energy by the target. This phenomenon is investigated to use the LiDAR intensity data for land-cover classification. The goal of this paper is to investigate and evaluates the use of different image classification techniques applied on LiDAR intensity data for land cover classification. The two techniques proposed are: a) Maximum likelihood classifier used as pixel- based classification technique; and b) Image segmentation used as object-based classification technique. A study area covers an urban district in Burnaby, British Colombia, Canada, is selected to test the different classification techniques for extracting four feature classes: buildings, roads and parking areas, trees, and low vegetation (grass) areas, from the LiDAR intensity data. Generally, the results show that LiDAR intensity data can be used for land cover classification. An overall accuracy of 63.5% can be achieved using the pixel-based classification technique. The overall accuracy of the results is improved to 68% using the object- based classification technique. Further research is underway to investigate different criteria for segmentation process and to refine the design of the object-based classification algorithm.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".