Fusion of Airborne LiDAR Point Clouds and Aerial Images for Heterogeneous Land-Use Urban Mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organization has reported that the number of worldwide urban residents is expected to reach 70% of the total world population by 2050. In the face of challenges brought about by the demographic transition, there is an urgent need to improve the accuracy of urban land-use mappings to more efficiently inform about urban planning processes. Decision-makers rely on accurate urban mappings to properly assess current plans and to develop new ones. This study investigates the effects of including conventional spectral signatures acquired by different sensors on the classification of airborne LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) point clouds using multiple feature spaces. The proposed method applied three machine learning algorithms—ML (Maximum Likelihood), SVM (Support Vector Machines), and MLP (Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network)—to classify LiDAR point clouds of a residential urban area after being geo-registered to aerial photos. The overall classification accuracy passed 97%, with height as the only geometric feature in the classifying space. Misclassifications occurred among different classes due to independent acquisition of aerial and LiDAR data as well as shadow and orthorectification problems from aerial images. Nevertheless, the outcomes are promising as they surpassed those achieved with large geometric feature spaces and are encouraging since the approach is computationally reasonable and integrates radiometric properties from affordable sensors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".