Segmentation of Individual Tree Points by Combining Marker-Controlled Watershed Segmentation and Spectral Clustering Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate identification and segmentation of individual tree points are crucial for assessing forest spatial distribution, understanding tree growth and structure, and managing forest resources. Traditional methods based on Canopy Height Models (CHM) are simple yet prone to over- and/or under-segmentation. To deal with this problem, this paper introduces a novel approach that combines marker-controlled watershed segmentation with a spectral clustering algorithm. Initially, we determined the local maxima within a series of variable windows according to the lower bound of the prediction interval of the regression equation between tree crown radius and tree height to preliminarily segment individual trees. Subsequently, using this geometric shape analysis method, the under-segmented trees were identified. For these trees, vertical tree crown profile analysis was performed in multiple directions to detect potential treetops which were then considered as inputs for spectral clustering optimization. Our experiments across six plots showed that our method markedly surpasses traditional approaches, achieving an average Recall of 0.854, a Precision of 0.937, and an F1-score of 0.892.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".