DEM Retrieval From Airborne LiDAR Point Clouds in Mountain Areas via Deep Neural Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) remote sensing enables accurate estimation and monitoring of terrain and vegetation, and digital surface model (DSM) and digital elevation model (DEM) are vital analytical tools to achieve this estimation and monitoring. Among them, DSM can be directly acquired from airborne LiDAR point clouds; nevertheless, for the production of DEM, point clouds representing a surface of ground objects should be accurately filtered out at first. In some mountain forest areas, due to the limited penetration of airborne LiDAR, ground points sustain a serious lack, which results in the difficulty in producing accurate DEMs. To reduce the intricacy and subjectivity caused by the manual supplement to ground points, this letter proposes a new DEM retrieval method from airborne LiDAR point clouds in mountain areas based on deep neural networks (DNNs). With a DNN model trained by accurate DEMs and DSMs, DEM retrieval becomes much easier by inputting their DSM into this model for prediction. Experiments on Fujian and Hainan mountain data sets demonstrate the effectiveness of this supervised method.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it