Tree detection and diameter estimation based on deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tree perception is an essential building block toward autonomous forestry operations. Current developments generally consider input data from lidar sensors to solve forest navigation, tree detection and diameter estimation problems, whereas cameras paired with deep learning algorithms usually address species classification or forest anomaly detection. In either of these cases, data unavailability and forest diversity restrain deep learning developments for autonomous systems. Therefore, we propose two densely annotated image datasets—43 k synthetic, 100 real—for bounding box, segmentation mask and keypoint detections to assess the potential of vision-based methods. Deep neural network models trained on our datasets achieve a precision of 90.4 % for tree detection, 87.2 % for tree segmentation and centimeter accurate keypoint estimations. We measure our models’ generalizability when testing it on other forest datasets, and their scalability with different dataset sizes and architectural improvements. Overall, the experimental results offer promising avenues toward autonomous tree felling operations and other applied forestry problems. The datasets and pre-trained models in this article are publicly available on GitHub (https://github.com/norlab-ulaval/PercepTreeV1).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".