MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311633596 · doi:10.3390/rs14236167

Optimization Method of Airborne LiDAR Individual Tree Segmentation Based on Gaussian Mixture Model

2022· article· en· W4311633596 on OpenAlexaff
Zhenyu Zhang, Jian Wang, Zhiyuan Li, Youlong Zhao, Ruisheng Wang, Ayman Habib

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersInterregMinistry of Science and Technology, TaiwanShandong University of Science and TechnologyShandong University
KeywordsLidarComputer scienceSegmentationMixture modelTree (set theory)GaussianCovariance matrixArtificial intelligenceCovarianceRemote sensingCluster analysisUnderstoryPattern recognition (psychology)Environmental scienceCanopyMathematicsAlgorithmStatisticsEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forests are the main part of the terrestrial ecosystem. Airborne LiDAR is fast, comprehensive, penetrating, and contactless and can depict 3D canopy information with a high efficiency and accuracy. Therefore, it plays an important role in forest ecological protection, tree species recognition, carbon sink calculation, etc. Accurate recognition of individual trees in forests is a key step to various application. In real practice, however, the accuracy of individual tree segmentation (ITS) is often compromised by under-segmentation due to the diverse species, obstruction and understory trees typical of a high-density multistoried mixed forest area. Therefore, this paper proposes an ITS optimization method based on Gaussian mixture model for airborne LiDAR data. First, the mean shift (MS) algorithm is used for the initial ITS of the pre-processed airborne LiDAR data. Next, under-segmented samples are extracted by integrated learning, normally segmented samples are classified by morphological approximation, and the approximate distribution uncertainty of the normal samples is described with a covariance matrix. Finally, the class composition among the under-segmented samples is determined, and the under-segmented samples are re-segmented using Gaussian mixture model (GMM) clustering, in light of the optimal covariance matrix of the corresponding categories. Experiments with two datasets, Trento and Qingdao, resulted in ITS recall of 94% and 96%, accuracy of 82% and 91%, and F-scores of 0.87 and 0.93. Compared with the MS algorithm, our method is more accurate and less likely to under-segment individual trees in many cases. It can provide data support for the management and conservation of high-density multistoried mixed forest areas.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207