GROUND POINT FILTERING FROM AIRBORNE LIDAR POINT CLOUDS USING DEEP LEARNING: A PRELIMINARY STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Airborne lidar data is commonly used to generate point clouds over large areas. These points can be classified into different categories such as ground, building, vegetation, etc. The first step for this is to separate ground points from non-ground points. Existing methods rely mainly on TIN densification but there performance varies with the type of terrain and relies on the user’s experience who adjusts parameters accordingly. An alternative may be on the use of a deep learning approach that would limit user’s intervention. Hence, in this paper, we assess a deep learning architecture, PointNet, that applies directly to point clouds. Our preliminary results show mitigating classification rates and further investigation is required to properly train the system and improve the robustness, showing issues with the choices we made in the preprocessing. Nonetheless, our analysis suggests that it is necessary to enrich the architecture of the network to integrate the notion of neighbourhood at different scales in order to increase the accuracy and the robustness of the treatment as well as its capacity to treat data from different geographical contexts.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".