IMPACT OF DEEP LEARNING-BASED SUPER-RESOLUTION ON BUILDING FOOTPRINT EXTRACTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Automated building footprints extraction from High Spatial Resolution (HSR) remote sensing images plays important roles in urban planning and management, and hazard and disease control. However, HSR images are not always available in practice. In these cases, super-resolution, especially deep learning (DL)-based methods, can provide higher spatial resolution images given lower resolution images. In a variety of remote sensing applications, DL based super-resolution methods are widely used. However, there are few studies focusing on the impact of DL-based super-resolution on building footprint extraction. As such, we present an exploration of this topic. Specifically, we first super-resolve the Massachusetts Building Dataset using bicubic interpolation, a pre-trained Super-Resolution CNN (SRCNN), a pre-trained Residual Channel Attention Network (RCAN), a pre-trained Residual Feature Aggregation Network (RFANet). Then, using the dataset under its original resolution, as well as the four different super-resolutions of the dataset, we employ the High-Resolution Network (HRNet) v2 to extract building footprints. Our experiments show that super-resolving either training or test datasets using the latest high-performance DL-based super-resolution method can improve the accuracy of building footprints extraction. Although SRCNN based building footprint extraction gives the highest Overall Accuracy, Intersection of Union and F1 score, we suggest using the latest super-resolution method to process images before building footprint extraction due to the fixed scale ratio of pre-trained SRCNN and low speed of convergence in training.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".