AERIAL POINT CLOUD CLASSIFICATION WITH DEEP LEARNING AND MACHINE LEARNING ALGORITHMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. With recent advances in technology, 3D point clouds are getting more and more frequently requested and used, not only for visualization needs but also e.g. by public administrations for urban planning and management. 3D point clouds are also a very frequent source for generating 3D city models which became recently more available for many applications, such as urban development plans, energy evaluation, navigation, visibility analysis and numerous other GIS studies. While the main data sources remained the same (namely aerial photogrammetry and LiDAR), the way these city models are generated have been evolving towards automation with different approaches. As most of these approaches are based on point clouds with proper semantic classes, our aim is to classify aerial point clouds into meaningful semantic classes, e.g. ground level objects (GLO, including roads and pavements), vegetation, buildings’ facades and buildings’ roofs. In this study we tested and evaluated various machine learning algorithms for classification, including three deep learning algorithms and one machine learning algorithm. In the experiments, several hand-crafted geometric features depending on the dataset are used and, unconventionally, these geometric features are used also for deep learning.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".