Filtering Stems and Branches from Terrestrial Laser Scanning Point Clouds Using Deep 3-D Fully Convolutional Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) can produce precise and detailed point clouds of forest environment, thus enabling quantitative structure modeling (QSM) for accurate tree morphology and wood volume allocation. Applying QSM to plot-scale wood delineation is highly dependent on wood visibility from forest scans. A common problem is to filter wood point from noisy leafy points in the crowns and understory. This study proposed a deep 3-D fully convolution network (FCN) to filter both stem and branch points from complex plot scans. To train the 3-D FCN, reference stem and branch points were delineated semi-automatically for 14 sampled areas and three common species. Among seven testing areas, agreements between reference and model prediction, measured by intersection over union (IoU) and overall accuracy (OA), were 0.89 (stem IoU), 0.54 (branch IoU), 0.79 (mean IoU), and 0.94 (OA). Wood filtering results were further incorporated to a plot-scale QSM to extract individual tree forms, isolated wood, and understory wood from three plot scans with visual assessment. The wood filtering experiment provides evidence that deep learning is a powerful tool in 3-D point cloud processing and parsing.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".