MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197083592 · doi:10.3390/rs13173448

High-Resolution Terrain Modeling Using Airborne LiDAR Data with Transfer Learning

2021· article· en· W3197083592 on OpenAlexaff
Huxiong Li, Weiya Ye, Jun Liu, Weikai Tan, Saied Pirasteh, Sarah Narges Fatholahi, Jonathan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersBasic Public Welfare Research Program of Zhejiang ProvinceNatural Science Foundation of Zhejiang ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceDigital elevation modelLidarTerrainArtificial intelligencePoint cloudRemote sensingMean squared errorTransfer of learningElevation (ballistics)Convolutional neural networkFeature (linguistics)WorkflowInterpolation (computer graphics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Digital surfaceFeature extractionComputer visionImage (mathematics)GeologyMathematicsCartographyGeographyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a novel workflow for automated Digital Terrain Model (DTM) extraction from Airborne LiDAR point clouds based on a convolutional neural network (CNN), considering a transfer learning approach. The workflow consists of three parts: feature image generation, transfer learning using ResNet, and interpolation. First, each point is transformed into a featured image based on its elevation differences with neighboring points. Then, the feature images are classified into ground and non-ground using ImageNet pretrained ResNet models. The ground points are extracted by remapping each feature image to its corresponding points. Last, the extracted ground points are interpolated to generate a continuous elevation surface. We compared the proposed workflow with two traditional filters, namely the Progressive Morphological Filter (PMF) and the Progressive Triangulated Irregular Network Densification (PTD). Our results show that the proposed workflow establishes an advantageous DTM extraction accuracy with yields of only 0.52%, 4.84%, and 2.43% for Type I, Type II, and the total error, respectively. In comparison, Type I, Type II, and the total error for PMF are 7.82%, 11.60%, and 9.48% and for PTD 1.55%, 5.37%, and 3.22%, respectively. The root means square error (RMSE) for the 1 m resolution interpolated DTM is only 7.3 cm. Moreover, we conducted a qualitative analysis to investigate the reliability and limitations of the proposed workflow.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207