MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312812896 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2022.3218442

Unsupervised Semantic Segmenting TLS Data of Individual Tree Based on Smoothness Constraint Using Open-Source Datasets

2022· article· en· W4312812896 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yanqi Dong, Zhibin Ma, Fu Xu, Feixiang Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBeijing Forestry UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPoint cloudSegmentationComputer scienceTree (set theory)Image segmentationArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Remote sensingMathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unsupervised segmentation of Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) data into wood and leaf is the key for studying forest carbon storage, photosynthesis, canopy radiation. Further segmentation of wood data into trunk and larger branch (TLB), remaining branch (RB) is of great significance and challenge for dust retention, soil heavy metal enrichment. We proposed an unsupervised, automatic semantic segmentation method based on TLS data of individual tree. The method firstly performs initial segmentation based on plane fitting residuals and neighborhood normal angle, which can extract smooth and connected regions in point cloud. Then, the geometric features of segmented clusters are quantified to approximate RB or leaf features. Finally, the segmentation of TLB, RB, and leaf is realized by combining different clusters from bottom to top with geometric features and neighborhood relations. The segmentation performance of our method was evaluated with 104 tree samples from 23 tree species in two open-source datasets from Indonesia, Peru, Guyana and from Canada and Finland. The micro-average precision of our method is 93.61%. The micro-average recalls of TLB, RB, and leaf are 97.08%, 86.44%, and 89.62%. Compared with the well-known method of separating wood and leaf, our method has 33.56% higher sensitivity, 1.82% higher specificity, 20.52% higher precision, and 0.217 higher F1-score. Besides, we estimated the surface area and volume of TLB, the surface area and volume of RB based on the segmented data. The above parameters have good consistency compared to those calculated based on manually separated point clouds (Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) of 0.55-0.93).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207