MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121754326 · doi:10.1109/jstars.2021.3053603

Reconstruction Bias U-Net for Road Extraction From Optical Remote Sensing Images

2021· article· en· W3121754326 on OpenAlexaff
Ziyi Chen, Cheng Wang, Jonathan Li, Nianci Xie, Yan Han, Ji‐Xiang Du

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutomated Road and Building Extraction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Fujian ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceDecoding methodsSegmentationRemote sensingInformation extractionFeature extractionDeep learningImage segmentationComputer visionIntelligent transportation systemPattern recognition (psychology)GeographyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic road extraction from remote sensing images plays an important role for navigation, intelligent transportation, and road network update, etc. Convolutional neural network (CNN)-based methods have presented many achievements for road extraction from remote sensing images. CNN-based methods require a large dataset with high quality labels for model training. However, there is still few standard and large dataset, which is specially designed for road extraction from optical remote sensing images. Besides, the existing end-to-end CNN models for road extraction from remote sensing images are usually with symmetric structure, studying on asymmetric structure between encoding and decoding is rare. To address the above problems, this article first provides a publicly available dataset LRSNY for road extraction from optical remote sensing images with manually labelled labels. Second, we propose a reconstruction bias U-Net for road extraction from remote sensing images. In our model, we increase the decoding branches to obtain multiple semantic information from different upsamplings. Experimental results show that our method achieves better performance compared with other six state-of-the-art segmentation models when testing on our LRSNY dataset. We also test on Massachusetts and Shaoshan datasets. The good performances on the two datasets further prove the effectiveness of our method.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations106
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote SensingSame topicAutomated Road and Building ExtractionFrench-language works237,207