Detecting Building Edges from High Spatial Resolution Remote Sensing Imagery Using Richer Convolution Features Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the basic feature of building, building edges play an important role in many fields such as urbanization monitoring, city planning, surveying and mapping. Building edges detection from high spatial resolution remote sensing (HSRRS) imagery has always been a long-standing problem. Inspired by the recent success of deep-learning-based edge detection, a building edge detection model using a richer convolutional features (RCF) network is employed in this paper to detect building edges. Firstly, a dataset for building edges detection is constructed by the proposed most peripheral constraint conversion algorithm. Then, based on this dataset the RCF network is retrained. Finally, the edge probability map is obtained by RCF-building model, and this paper involves a geomorphological concept to refine edge probability map according to geometric morphological analysis of topographic surface. The experimental results suggest that RCF-building model can detect building edges accurately and completely, and that this model has an edge detection F-measure that is at least 5% higher than that of other three typical building extraction methods. In addition, the ablation experiment result proves that using the most peripheral constraint conversion algorithm can generate more superior dataset, and the involved refinement algorithm shows a higher F-measure and better visual effect contrasted with the non-maximal suppression 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".