Learning to reconstruct botanical trees from single images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce a novel method for reconstructing the 3D geometry of botanical trees from single photographs. Faithfully reconstructing a tree from single-view sensor data is a challenging and open problem because many possible 3D trees exist that fit the tree's shape observed from a single view. We address this challenge by defining a reconstruction pipeline based on three neural networks. The networks simultaneously mask out trees in input photographs, identify a tree's species, and obtain its 3D radial bounding volume - our novel 3D representation for botanical trees. Radial bounding volumes (RBV) are used to orchestrate a procedural model primed on learned parameters to grow a tree that matches the main branching structure and the overall shape of the captured tree. While the RBV allows us to faithfully reconstruct the main branching structure, we use the procedural model's morphological constraints to generate realistic branching for the tree crown. This constraints the number of solutions of tree models for a given photograph of a tree. We show that our method reconstructs various tree species even when the trees are captured in front of complex backgrounds. Moreover, although our neural networks have been trained on synthetic data with data augmentation, we show that our pipeline performs well for real tree photographs. We evaluate the reconstructed geometries with several metrics, including leaf area index and maximum radial tree distances.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".