MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210874378 · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2022.3149709

TAL: Topography-Aware Multi-Resolution Fusion Learning for Enhanced Building Footprint Extraction

2022· article· en· W4210874378 on OpenAlexafffund
Yifan Wu, Linlin Xu, Yuhao Chen, Alexander Wong, David A. Clausi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutomated Road and Building Extraction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsFootprintComputer scienceExtraction (chemistry)Artificial intelligenceFusionImage resolutionFeature extractionComputer visionResolution (logic)Sensor fusionRemote sensingGeologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic building footprint extraction from remote sensing imagery is a challenging task with important applications in geomatics and environmental science. Significant advances have been made in this field as a result of the emergence of deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) designed for semantic segmentation. Although CNNs have demonstrated state-of-the-art performance in coarse annotation and identification of buildings, the accuracy of extracted building footprints is still insufficient for high-precision applications such as mapping and navigation. We propose the topography-aware multi-resolution fusion learning strategy tailored to the problem of enhanced building footprint extraction. More specifically, we introduce a topography-aware loss (TAL) for enhancing a deep CNN’s ability to learn heterogeneous building features for better boundary preservation during segmentation. We then incorporate the proposed TAL loss within a multi-resolution fusion architecture to boost high-resolution segmentation performance. Finally, we introduce a novel metric named average thresholded contour accuracy (tCA) which specifically measures the accuracy of segmentation boundaries. The experimental results on the SpaceNet buildings dataset show significant improvements in boundary integrity of extracted building footprints when compared with previously proposed methods. Hence, this method enables accurate boundary annotation toward automatic production of building footprint maps for high-precision applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing LettersSame topicAutomated Road and Building ExtractionFrench-language works237,207