MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310036638 · doi:10.3390/rs14235934

Evaluation of LiDAR-Derived Features Relevance and Training Data Minimization for 3D Point Cloud Classification

2022· article· en· W4310036638 on OpenAlexaff
Salem Morsy, Ahmed Shaker

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarPoint cloudComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceRemote sensingRelevance (law)Process (computing)Feature (linguistics)Random forestData miningFeature extractionPattern recognition (psychology)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) is a leading technology in data acquisition for building information modeling (BIM) applications due to its rapid, direct, and accurate scanning of different objects with high point density. Three-dimensional point cloud classification is essential step for Scan-to-BIM applications that requires high accuracy classification methods, running at reasonable processing time. The classification process is divided into three main steps: neighborhood definition, LiDAR-derived features extraction, and machine learning algorithms being applied to label each LiDAR point. However, the extraction of LiDAR-derived features and training data are time consuming. This research aims to minimize the training data, assess the relevance of sixteen LiDAR-derived geometric features, and select the most contributing features to the classification process. A pointwise classification method based on random forests is applied on the 3D point cloud of a university campus building collected by a TLS system. The results demonstrated that the normalized height feature, which represented the absolute height above ground, was the most significant feature in the classification process with overall accuracy more than 99%. The training data were minimized to about 10% of the whole dataset with achieving the same level of accuracy. The findings of this paper open doors for BIM-related applications such as city digital twins, operation and maintenance of existing structures, and structural health monitoring.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207