Comparing Three Machine Learning Techniques for Building Extraction from a Digital Surface Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatic building extraction from high-resolution remotely sensed data is a major area of interest for an extensive range of fields (e.g., urban planning, environmental risk management) but challenging due to urban morphology complexity. Among the different methods proposed, the approaches based on supervised machine learning (ML) achieve the best results. This paper aims to investigate building footprint extraction using only high-resolution raster digital surface model (DSM) data by comparing the performance of three different popular supervised ML models on a benchmark dataset. The first two methods rely on a histogram of oriented gradients (HOG) feature descriptor and a classical ML (support vector machine (SVM)) or a shallow neural network (extreme learning machine (ELM)) classifier, and the third model is a fully convolutional network (FCN) based on deep learning with transfer learning. Used data were obtained from the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS) and cover the urban areas of Vaihingen an der Enz, Potsdam, and Toronto. The results indicated that performances of models based on shallow ML (feature extraction and classifier training) are affected by the urban context investigated (F1 scores from 0.49 to 0.81), whereas the FCN-based model proved to be the most robust and best-performing method for building extraction from a high-resolution raster DSM (F1 scores from 0.80 to 0.86).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".