MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

BOUNDARY REGULARIZED BUILDING FOOTPRINT EXTRACTION FROM SATELLITE IMAGES USING DEEP NEURAL NETWORKS

2020· article· en· W3047485635 on OpenAlexafffund
Ke Zhao, Muhammad Kamran, Gunho Sohn

Bibliographic record

VenueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutomated Road and Building Extraction
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionDeep learningSatellite imageryBoundary (topology)Artificial neural networkSatelliteFeature extractionPattern recognition (psychology)Remote sensingGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. In recent years, an ever-increasing number of remote satellites are orbiting the Earth which streams vast amount of visual data to support a wide range of civil, public and military applications. One of the key information obtained from satellite imagery is to produce and update spatial maps of built environment due to its wide coverage with high resolution data. However, reconstructing spatial maps from satellite imagery is not a trivial vision task as it requires reconstructing a scene or object with high-level representation such as primitives. For the last decade, significant advancement in object detection and representation using visual data has been achieved, but the primitive-based object representation still remains as a challenging vision task. Thus, a high-quality spatial map is mainly produced through complex labour-intensive processes. In this paper, we propose a novel deep neural network, which enables to jointly detect building instance and regularize noisy building boundary shapes from a single satellite imagery. The proposed deep learning method consists of a two-stage object detection network to produce region of interest (RoI) features and a building boundary extraction network using graph models to learn geometric information of the polygon shapes. Extensive experiments show that our model can accomplish multi-tasks of object localization, recognition, semantic labelling and geometric shape extraction simultaneously. In terms of building extraction accuracy, computation efficiency and boundary regularization performance, our model outperforms the state-of-the-art baseline models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topicAutomated Road and Building ExtractionFrench-language works237,207