The Impact of Data Volume on Performance of Deep Learning Based Building Rooftop Extraction Using Very High Spatial Resolution Aerial Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building rooftop data are of importance in several urban applications and in natural disaster management. In contrast to traditional surveying and mapping, by using high spatial resolution aerial images, deep learning-based building rooftops extraction methods are efficient and accurate. Although more training data is preferred in deep learning-based tasks, the effect of data volume on building extraction models is underexplored. Therefore, the paper explores the impact of data volume on the performance of building rooftop extraction from very-high-spatial-resolution (VHSR) images using deep learning-based methods. To do so, we manually labelled 0.12m spatial resolution aerial images and perform a comparative analysis of models trained on datasets of different sizes using popular deep learning architectures for segmentation tasks, including Fully Convolutional Networks (FCN)-8s, U-Net and DeepLabv3+. The experiments showed that with more training data, algorithms converged faster and achieved higher accuracy, while better algorithms were able to better mitigate the lack of training data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".