Point Cloud-based Computer Vision Framework for Detecting Proximity of Trees to Power Distribution Lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The maintenance of power lines is challenged by the encroachment of vegetation, posing significant risks to the reliability and safety of power utilities. Traditional methods, based on manual inspection, are not only resource-intensive but also lack the necessary precision for effective and proactive maintenance. This paper aims to develop an automated, accurate, and efficient approach to vegetation management in the vicinity of power lines. It leverages advancements in data collection using LiDAR scanning technology, which despite its potential, faces computational challenges in processing large-scale 3D point clouds to accurately identify power lines and surrounding vegetation. To overcome this challenge, the proposed method deploys the RandLA-Net model for the semantic segmentation of power lines and nearby vegetation in point cloud datasets. Furthermore, the post-processing analysis of the segmented data uses clustering and rule-based thresholding to refine the identification of vegetation. Then, proximity detection is applied using spatial queries based on a KDTree structure. The results of the case study demonstrate the computational efficiency and accuracy of the proposed method, presenting a promising solution for power utilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".