A Deep Learning Time Series Approach for Leaf and Wood Classification from Terrestrial LiDAR Point Clouds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accurate separation between leaf and woody components from terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) data is vital for the estimation of leaf area index (LAI) and wood area index (WAI). Here, we present the application of deep learning time series separation of leaves and wood from TLS point clouds collected from broad-leaved trees. First, we use a multiple radius nearest neighbor approach to obtain a time series of the geometric features. Second, we compare the performance of Fully Convolutional Neural Network (FCN), Long Short-Term Memory Fully Convolutional Neural Network (LSTM-FCN), and Residual Network (ResNet) on leaf and wood classification. We also compare the effect of univariable (UTS) and multivariable (MTS) time series on classification accuracy. Finally, we explore the utilization of a class activation map (CAM) to reduce the black-box effect of deep learning. The average overall accuracy of the MTS method across the training data is 0.96, which is higher than the UTS methods (0.67 to 0.88). Meanwhile, ResNet spent much more time than FCN and LSTM-FCN in model development. When testing our method on an independent dataset, the MTS models based on FCN, LSTM-FCN, and ResNet all demonstrate similar performance. Our method indicates that the CAM can explain the black-box effect of deep learning and suggests that deep learning algorithms coupled with geometric feature time series can accurately separate leaf and woody components from point clouds. This provides a good starting point for future research into estimation of forest structure parameters.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".